DRAFT Bayou Chico BMAP

Document Sample
DRAFT Bayou Chico BMAP Powered By Docstoc
					Please note:
The following is an INCOMPLETE draft of the Bayou Chico BMAP. Stakeholders will
meet on Friday, November 19th to help fill the gaps of information on both programs and
project details with regard to the TMDL implementation activities and specific monitoring
actions that will be taking place in this phase of the BMAP We expect to finalize the
document by the end of December.

       BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
    for the Implementation of Total Daily Maximum Loads for Fecal
    Coliform Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental
                              Protection


                                         in the




            Bayou Chico
         (Pensacola Basin)

                          Developed in consultation with
Bayou Chico BMAP Technical Group and Local Stakeholders


                                        and the
         Florida Department of Environmental Protection
            Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration
                       Bureau of Watershed Restoration
                          Tallahassee, Florida 32399




                                    August 2011
                  Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The Bayou Chico Watershed Basin Management Action Plan was prepared as
part of a statewide watershed management approach to restore and protect Florida’s water quality.
It is developed by local stakeholders, with participation from affected local, regional, state and
federal governmental and private interests, and in cooperation with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. We especially recognize and appreciate the efforts of all of our
participants and local stakeholder groups.

We particularly wish to recognize the following contributors to the Bayou Chico BMAP:

Escambia County: Taylor Kirschenfeld, Brent Wipf, Sava Varazo, Joy Blackmon, T. Lloyd Kerr,
Robert Turpin, Jeri Folse and Erin Percifull

Escambia County Environmental Health Department: Robert Merritt, Phillip Davies and Louviminda
Donado

Emerald Coast Utility Authority: Tim Haag, John M. Seymour, Stephen P. Holcomb, and Wade
Wilson

City of Pensacola: Al Garza and Derrick Owens

Bayou Chico Association: John Naybor
West Florida Regional Planning Council: Mary Gutierrez
Florida Department of Transportation, District Three: Jim Kapinos, Joy Giddens, and Lonnie “DJ” Barber

University of West Florida - Center of Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation:
Dr. Dick Snyder and Dr. Carl Mohrherr

U.S. Naval Air Station: Mark Gibson
Pensacola Yacht Club: Sam Foreman and Vicki Fletcher

And the Florida Department of Environmental Protection – Northwest District:
Kenneth Prest, Dick Fancher. Bradley Hartshorn , Mike King, Jonathon Colmer, Jennifer Claypool
and Dan Stripling

As well as other key participants from local stakeholder interest groups including,

Larry Buxton, Alexander Maestre, Barbara Albrecht, Eleanor Godwin, Ken Davis and William
DeBusk


For additional information on the Basin Management Action Plan in the Bayou Chico
Watershed, contact:

Bonita Gorham, Basin Coordinator
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section
2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Email: Bonita.Gorham@dep.state.fl.us
Phone: (850) 245–8513




                                                  xviii
                     Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... XVIII
CHAPTER 1 : CONTEXT, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF THE PLAN .......................... 23
   1.1  Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads ................... 23
   1.2  TMDL Implementation ............................................................................... 25
   1.3  The Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan ................................. 26
            1.3.1     Stakeholder Involvement .............................................................................26
            1.3.2     Plan Purpose and Approach ........................................................................26
            1.3.3     Plan Scope ..................................................................................................27
            1.3.4     Sufficiency of Effort Approach and Determination of Sufficiency..................29
            1.3.5     Pollutant Reduction and Discharge Allocations ...........................................31
            1.3.6     Bayou Chico Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL ...........................................31
            1.3.7     Historical Background and Other Considerations in Bayou Chico………….
      1.4     Assumptions and Considerations Regarding TMDL Implementation .. 32
            1.4.1   Assumptions…………………………………………………………..add bookmark
            1.4.2   Considerations……………………………………..…………………add bookmark
   1.5  Future Growth in the Watershed .............................................................. 35
CHAPTER 2 : POLLUTANT SOURCES AND ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES ............... 36
   2.1  Fecal Coliform Pollutant Sources ............................................................ 36
            2.1.1     Sanitary Sewer Systems .............................................................................36
            2.1.2     Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems .......................................37
            2.1.3     Stormwater ..................................................................................................38
   2.2   Water Quality Trends in the Watershed................................................... 39
   2.3   Anticipated Outcomes .............................................................................. 40
CHAPTER 3 : SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS ............................................................ 41
   3.1   Potential Sources ...................................................................................... 41
   3.2   Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading .......................................... 41
   3.3   Summary of Restoration Activities and Sufficiency of Efforts .............. 44
CHAPTER 4 : OSTDS .................................................................................................. 45
   4.1   Potential Sources ...................................................................................... 45
   4.2   Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading .......................................... 45
   4.3   Summary of Restoration Activities and Sufficiency of Efforts .............. 51
CHAPTER 5 : STORMWATER ..................................................................................... 52
   5.1   Potential Sources ...................................................................................... 52
   5.2   Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading .......................................... 52
   5.3   Summary of Restoration Activities and Sufficiency of Efforts ................ 1
CHAPTER 6: MARINA ACTIVITIES ................................................ADD BOOKMARKS
     6.1   Clean Marina Programs…………………………………………….add bookmarks
     6.2   Mooring and Anchoring Activity………………………………….add bookmarks
     6.3   Summary of Restoration Activities and Sufficiency of Efforts………added
CHAPTER 7 : ASSESSING PROGRESS AND MAKING CHANGES..............................
   7.1   Tracking Implementation ..............................................................................

                                                                 xix
                       Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


      7.2       Water Quality Monitoring ..............................................................................
             7.2.1       Water Quality Monitoring Objectives...............................................................
             7.2.2       Water Quality Indicators ............................................................................... 7
             7.2.3       Monitoring Network ...................................................................................... 7
             7.2.4       Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................ 8
             7.2.5       Data Management and Assessment ............................................................. 8
   7.3  Adaptive Management Measures ............................................................... 8
CHAPTER 7 : COMMITMENT TO PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .................................... 10
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 11
   Appendix A: TMDL Basin Rotation Schedule ................................................... 12
   Appendix B: Summary of Statutory Provisions Guiding BMAP Development
                 and Implementation....................................................................... 13
   Appendix C: Stakeholder Involvement in BMAP Development ....................... 16
   Appendix D: Summary of EPA-Recommended Elements of a
                 Comprehensive Watershed Plan .................................................. 17
   Appendix E: Programs To Achieve the TMDL ................................................... 20
   Appendix F: Glossary of Terms .......................................................................... 27
   Appendix G: Bibliography of Key References and Websites .......................... 32
             Key References: .......................................................................................................32
             Stormwater and Water Quality Protection Websites: .................................................33




                                                                    xx
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


                                    LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bayou Chico Watershed .. Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure E-1.
Figure E-3.
Figure E-4.
FIGURE E-5
FIGURE E-6
FIGURE E-7 Reported Septic Tank Repairs in the Bayou Chico Watershed………….
FIGURE E-8 Stakeholder Efforts in the Bayou Chico Watershed……………………….




                                              xxi
                     Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


                                               LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Florida Surface Waters .....................23
Table 2: Phases of the Watershed Management Cycle ........................................................25
Table 3: Bayou Chico Fecal Coliform TMDL .........................................................................32
Table 4: Stakeholer Activities to Address Sanitary Sewer System Sources ......................42
Table 5: Stakeholder Activities to Address OSTDS Sources ...............................................48
Table 6: Stakeholder Activities to Address Stormwater Sources........................................55
Table 7: Proposed BMAP Annual Reporting Form ................................................................ 5
Table 8: Water Quality Indicators and Field Parameters ....................................................... 7
Table A-1: Major Hydrologic Basins by Group and FDEP District Office ............................12
Table G-1: Stormwater and Water Quality Protection Websites ..........................................33




                                                           xxii
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



         LIST OF ACRONYMS (ADD TO LIST IF NEEDED)
BMAP        Basin Management Action Plan
BMP         Best Management Practice
CFU         Colonies Found per Unit
ECHD        Escambia County Health Department
EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F.A.C.      Florida Administrative Code
FDACS       Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FDEP        Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOH        Florida Department of Health
FDOT        Florida Department of Transportation
FOG         Fats, Oils, and Grease
F.S.        Florida Statutes
FWRA        Florida Watershed Restoration Act
GIS         Geographic Information System
I&I         Inflow and Infiltration
IWR         Impaired Surface Waters Rule
MOS         Margin of Safety
mL          Milliliter
MPN         Most Probable Number
MS4         Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OSTDS       Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System
PIC         Potential Illicit Connection
PSA         Public Service Announcement
QA/QC       Quality Assurance/Quality Control
SOP         Standard Operating Procedure
SSO         Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWMP        Stormwater Management Program
TMDL        Total Maximum Daily Load
WBID        Waterbody Identification
WWTF        Wastewater Treatment Facility




                               xvii
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED ONCE ALL THE SECTIONS IN
THE BMAP ARE FINALIZED (NEEDING MUCH MORE INPUT FROM OUR
STAKEHOLDERS)

BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED

The Bayou Chico Watershed, located in Escambia County, has a 10.36-square-mile (mi2)
drainage area. The watershed is located in the southern end of Escambia County, just east of
Blue Angel Parkway and north of Bayou Grande. The waterbodies addressed by this Basin
Management Action Plan contain Bayou Chico, which discharges directly to Pensacola Bay,
and include Bayou Chico Drain, Bayou Chico Beach, Sanders Beach, Jones Creek and Jackson
Creek, which flow into Bayou Chico. The Bayou Chico Watershed has a water surface area of
approximately 0.39 square miles.

The Bayou Chico Watershed consists of two Class III fresh waterbodies (Jones Creek and
Jackson Creek) and four Class III marine waterbodies (Bayou Chico, Bayou Chico Drain, Bayou
Chico Beach, and Sanders Beach). The Class III waterbodies have a designated use of
recreation, propagation, and the maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and
wildlife. The water quality criterion applicable to the impairment addressed by this TMDL is the
Class III criterion for fecal coliform.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are water quality targets for specific pollutants (such as
fecal coliform) that are established for impaired waterbodies that do not meet their designated
uses based on Florida water quality standards. During Cycle 1 of the watershed management
cycle in the Bayou Chico Basin, as required by federal law, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) identified five of six tributaries in the Bayou Chico watershed
that had verified fecal coliform impairments.

In 2008, FDEP adopted TMDLs for the following waterbodies and are included in the BMAP:
     Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
     Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
     Jackson Creek (WBID 846B),
     Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB), and,
     Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA).

In addition, a sixth segment, Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C), was not listed as impaired.
The Bayou Chico Fecal Coliform TMDL was calculated as the median of the percent reductions
needed over the data range where exceedances occurred, which in this case was over the
entire range of flow conditions. The source loadings for fecal coliforms described in Chapter 2
would need to be reduced by 61 percent to achieve the TMDL.

THE BAYOU CHICO BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN APPROACH




                                              xviii
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) contains provisions that guide the development
of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) and other TMDL implementation approaches. This
BMAP provides for phased implementation under Paragraph 403.067(7)(a)1, Florida Statutes
(F.S.). A 5-year milestone in this BMAP will be to assess and verify that adequate progress is
being made towards achieving the TMDL. The adaptive management approach for TMDL
implementation described in the BMAP will address fecal coliform bacteria reductions, and the
iterative evaluation process will continue until the TMDL is attained.

This first five-year phase of the BMAP is designed to address the TMDL and the achievement of
water quality standards in the watershed. This phase may include the gathering of additional
information or studies that can be used in the development of the subsequent phase(s) to
further support TMDL implementation. In addition, the phased BMAP approach allows for the
implementation of projects designed to achieve reductions, while simultaneously implementing
source assessment, carrying out monitoring, and conducting studies to better understand fecal
coliform variability and water quality dynamics in each impaired waterbody.

Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of the TMDL Program, and varies with each
phase of implementation to achieve different purposes. The BMAP development process is
structured to achieve cooperation and consensus among a broad range of interested parties.
Meaningful public involvement was a key component in the development of the Bayou Chico
BMAP. In February 2008, FDEP initiated the BMAP development process and held a series of
technical meetings involving key stakeholders and the general public. The purpose of the
technical meetings was to work with key stakeholders to gather information on the impaired
tributaries to aid in the development of the BMAP and to identify management actions that will
improve water quality. A total of eight meetings were held over the course of this period to aid
in information gathering, identify potential sources, conduct field reconnaissance, define
programs, projects and actions currently underway, and to develop BMAP contents and actions
that will improve water quality goal of achieving the TMDL target reductions. Stakeholder
involvement is essential to develop, gain support for, and secure commitments to implement the
BMAP.
This BMAP addresses those waterbodies located with the Bayou Chico watershed that were
impaired for fecal coliform. Of the six segments that make up the entire Bayou Chico watershed,
five waterbody identification (WBID) numbers were impaired for fecal coliform. The projects and
activities outlined in this BMAP are considered sufficient to address all of the identified sources
and, with full implementation of this BMAP, the Bayou Chico watershed is expected to meet the
TMDL requirements. Through ongoing projects, studies and monitoring efforts, the five year
BMAP milestone evaluation and annual BMAP reviews should be able to identify and address
any additional sources that occur and necessary actions.


SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORT EVALUATION

The Bayou Chico Fecal Coliform TMDL is expressed as a percent reduction based on in-stream
fecal coliform concentrations. This method of TMDL allocation precludes detailed allocations, as
it is complicated to equitably allocate to stakeholders based on a percent reduction of in-stream
concentration. Fecal coliforms are highly variable and easily transported, making it difficult, in
many cases, to identify the source of the bacteria. Additionally, almost no data are available
that show the efficiency of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and management
actions in removing or reducing fecal coliforms.



                                                xix
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



FDEP evaluated fecal coliform reduction activities using a “sufficiency of effort” approach, which
is a WBID-specific assessment of the identified potential sources and the specific activities that
will reduce or eliminate sources of fecal coliform loading. This sufficiency of effort evaluation is
not an assessment of each entity’s individual activities; rather, it focuses on whether the
submitted activities corresponded to the potential sources identified in the watershed and
whether those total efforts are adequate to eliminate the known sources, assess unknown
sources, and prevent the development of new sources.

This sufficiency of effort evaluation was not an assessment of each agency’s individual
activities; rather, it was focused on whether the activities submitted by all entities corresponds to
potential sources or hot spots identified and whether the total efforts were adequate to eliminate
the known sources, assess unknown sources, and prevent the development of new sources.

Based on source assessments and information gathered for this BMAP, a summary of
restoration activities (Section ___) was produced to ensure that appropriate programs and
activities were being implemented for the most likely sources that would either decrease or
eliminate the known sources, or that may be needed to further assess fecal coliform loadings.
The full implementation of the management actions/projects identified in this BMAP (is deemed
sufficient) to address the fecal coliform bacteria reductions needed to meet the TMDLs.


KEY ELEMENTS OF THE BMAP
This BMAP addresses the key elements required by the Florida Watershed Restoration Act
(FWRA), Chapter 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), including the following:

      Document how the public and other stakeholders were encouraged to participate
       or participated in developing the BMAP (Section 1.3.1);
      Equitably allocate pollutant reductions in the basin (Section 1.3.4 and 1.3.5);
      Identify the mechanisms by which potential future increases in pollutant loading
       will be addressed (Section 1.5);
      Document management actions/projects to achieve the TMDLs (Chapters 3, 4, 5
       and 6);
      Document the implementation schedule, funding, responsibilities, and milestones
       (Sections 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, and 6.3); and
      Identify monitoring, evaluation, and a reporting strategy to evaluate reasonable
       progress over time (Chapter 7).
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES OF BMAP IMPLEMENTATION
Through the implementation of projects, activities, and additional source assessment in this
BMAP, stakeholders expect the following outcomes:

• Improved water quality trends in the Bayou Chico watershed that will also help improve water
quality in other receiving waterbodies (Pensacola Bay);
• Decreased loading (levels) of the target pollutant (fecal coliforms);
• Enhanced public awareness of fecal coliform sources and impacts on water quality;
• Enhanced effectiveness of corresponding corrective actions by stakeholders;
• Better understanding of the basin hydrology, water quality, and of pollutant sources; and
• Improved ability to evaluate management actions, assess their benefits, and identify additional
pollutant sources.
\


                                                 xx
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



BMAP COST
[to generally describe the costs of the projects in the BMAP and funding sources.]
Costs were provided for ___% of the activities identified in the BMAP, with an estimated total
cost of more than $____ for capital projects and an estimated $____ million for ongoing
programs and activities. In addition, some of the activities identified in the BMAP had only
county-wide costs available, for a total of more than $_____ . The funding sources for the
ongoing improvements have typically come from local contributions and homeowner
associations, stormwater utility fees, grants from state and federal programs, such as Section
319 programs, NOAA grants, and other programs. Technical stakeholders and local citizens will
continue to explore new opportunities for funding assistance to ensure that the activities listed in
this BMAP can be maintained at the necessary level of effort.
BMAP FOLLOW-UP

As a part of BMAP follow-up, FDEP and stakeholders will track implementation efforts and
monitor water quality to determine additional sources and water quality trends. The sampling
locations in the monitoring plan were selected to identify other potential sources of
contamination through source assessment monitoring at key locations throughout the
watersheds and to track trends in fecal coliforms by WBID by using existing stations with
historical data.
The source assessment monitoring will follow the established sampling protocol, in which any
observed fecal coliform colony count over 5,000 will be followed up with strategic sampling in an
effort to determine and address the source of the high fecal coliform count. Escambia County,
the City of Pensacola, the Bayou Chico Association, and the Emerald Coast Utility Authority, in
concert with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s strategic monitoring network,
will be responsible for the trend and source assessment sampling in the monitoring plan. These
stakeholders have committed to assist and/or provide monetary aid for a long-term monitoring
plan though the help of the University of West Florida and the Department. In addition, the
Escambia County Health Department will be continuing their weekly beach sampling for fecal
coliforms and Entercoccus bacteria counts at Bayou Chico and Sanders Beach, in conjunction
with their Healthy Beaches Program.

The results of these efforts will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMAP activities in
reducing fecal coliform loading in the Bayou Chico watershed. Technical stakeholders and local
citizens will meet with the Department at least every 12 months to discuss implementation
issues, consider new information, and determine what other management strategies are
needed, if monitoring indicates that additional measures are necessary to reduce fecal
coliforms.
BENEFITS OF THE BMAP PROCESS

With the implementation of activities outlined in this BMAP, in addition to the anticipated
outcomes noted above, the following benefits are expected:

• Increased coordination between state and local governments and within divisions of local
governments in problem solving for surface water quality restoration;
• Added security in obtaining additional state and local funding for water quality restoration;
• Improved communication and cooperation among state and local agencies responding to
restoration needs; and



                                                 xxi
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



• The determination of effective projects through the stakeholder decision-making and priority-
setting processes.

COMMITMENT TO BMAP IMPLEMENTATION

Local technical stakeholders will support the BMAP on behalf of the entities they represent and
are committed to ensuring that the plan is implemented to reduce fecal coliforms in the Bayou
Chico basin. In addition to this support, the BMAP was presented to the Bay Area Resource
Council (B.A.R.C.) on ____________ for endorsement. This organization represents a cross
section of elected officials from local governments (including two counties and three
municipalities) that have signed an inter-local agreement that comprise B.A.R.C. Their mission
is to develop annual goals and identify projects for implementation by engaging in agreements
or contracts with public and private entities for assistance in planning, financing and managing
the physical, chemical, biological, economic and aesthetic aspects of the Pensacola Bay
System, to share information gathered for local planning purposes and, to develop a restoration
program for the Pensacola Bay System Each county is allowed two representatives, each city
one representative. The representatives are comprised of many of our various stakeholders,
and including many of the entities involved in developing this BMAP. This endorsement will
provide FDEP with the necessary letters of commitment or resolutions of support and will
ensure that as staff and board members change over time, the entity has a way to show support
for the BMAP and the efforts it describes.




                                               xxii
                   Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




     CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF THE PLAN
1.1 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS
Florida's water quality standards are designed to ensure that surface waters can be used for
their designated purposes, such as drinking water, recreation, and agriculture. Currently, most
surface waters in Florida, including those in the Bayou Chico Watershed, are categorized as
Class III waters, which mean they must be suitable for recreation and must support the
propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. Table
1 shows all designated use categories.
Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, every two years each state must identify
its “impaired” waters, including estuaries, lakes, rivers, and streams, that do not meet their
designated uses and are not expected to improve within the subsequent two years. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is responsible for developing this “303(d) list”
of impaired waters.
      TABLE 1: DESIGNATED USE ATTAINMENT CATEGORIES FOR FLORIDA SURFACE WATERS
       CATEGORY                                                       DESCRIPTION
    Class I*              Potable water supplies
    Class II*             Shellfish propagation or harvesting
                          Recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population
    Class III
                          of fish and wildlife
    Class IV              Agricultural water supplies
    Class V               Navigation, utility, and industrial use (no current Class V designations)
    * Class I and II waters include the uses of the classifications listed below them.

Florida's 303(d) list identifies hundreds of waterbody segments that fall short of water quality
standards. The three most common water quality concerns are fecal coliform, nutrients, and
oxygen-demanding substances. The listed waterbody segments are candidates for more
detailed assessments of water quality to determine whether they are impaired according to state
statutory and rule criteria. The FDEP develops and adopts Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for waterbody segments it identifies as impaired. A TMDL is the maximum amount of
a specific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate while maintaining its designated uses.
The water quality evaluation and decision-making processes for listing impaired waters and
establishing TMDLs are authorized by Section 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), known as the
Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), and contained in Florida’s “Identification of
Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR)”, Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The
impaired waters in the tributaries of the Bayou Chico Basin addressed in this plan are all Class
III waters. TMDLs have been established for these waters, identifying the amount of fecal
coliform and other pollutants they can receive and still maintain Class III designated uses.
The Bayou Chico Watershed consists of two Class III fresh waterbodies (Jones Creek and
Jackson Creek) and four Class III marine waterbodies (Bayou Chico, Bayou Chico Drain, Bayou
Chico Beach, and Sanders Beach). The Class III waterbodies have a designated use of
recreation, propagation, and the maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and
wildlife. The water quality criterion applicable to the impairment addressed by the TMDL is the
Class III criterion for fecal coliform.


                                                                 23
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



For assessment purposes, the Department divided the Pensacola Basin into water assessment
polygons with a unique waterbody identification (WBID) numbers for each watershed or stream
reach. The Bayou Chico Watershed was divided into six waterbody segments, and this TMDL
addresses potential sources of bacteria in five of these segments: Bayou Chico (WBID 846),
Jones Creek (WBID 846A), Jackson Creek (WBID 846B), Bayou Chico Beach (WBID
846CB), and Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA). The sixth segment, Bayou Chico Drain (WBID
846C), is not listed as impaired. Error! Reference source not found.Figure 1 shows the
WBIDs discussed in this BMAP.
There are 25 sampling stations in the Bayou Chico Watershed that have historical coliform
observations. The primary data collector of historical data is the Bureau of Water, within FDOH’s
Florida Division of Environmental Health, which maintained routine sampling sites at Bayou
Chico and Sanders Beach (STORET IDs: 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA96 and 21FLDOH
ESCAMBIA91). These sites were sampled between two and six times per month from August
14, 2000 through June 27, 2005. Additional sampling was conducted by the Department up to
five times per month, and the Bream Fisherman’s Association on a quarterly basis. Data were
also collected by the Florida Division of Environmental Health was also used in the TMDL.

The verified periods for the TMDL were from January 1, 1998 through June 30, 2005. Of the
965 fecal coliform samples collected with the verified period, only 920 of those could be used to
establish the Bayou Chico TMDL (since 45 sampling events occurred on days without
corresponding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow measurements. The samples used in the
TMDL calculation ranged from 0 – 25,000 counts per 100 milliliters (counts/100ml), while the 45
samples that could not be used ranged from 8 to 880 counts/100ml.

Samples were collected in all months of the year, and exceedances occurred in each of the
months. There were at least 64 samples collected during a given month, with the greatest
number of samples (105) collected in March and December. The number of exceedances
ranges from a low of 4 in January to a high of 35 in September. Greater than 50 percent
exceedances during the verified period had occurred in all months except January, February
and March.

Numeric criteria for bacterial quality are expressed in terms of fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations. The water quality criterion for the protection of Class III waters, as established
by Rule 62-302, F.A.C., states the following:

Fecal Coliform Bacteria:

The most probable number (MPN) or membrane filter (MF) counts per 100 mL of fecal coliform
bacteria shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10 percent of the
samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day.

The criterion states that monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a
minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30-day period. However, during the development of load
curves for the impaired streams (as described in subsequent sections), there were insufficient
data (fewer than 10 samples in a given month) available to evaluate the geometric mean
criterion for fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, the criterion selected for the TMDL was not to
exceed 400 in 10 percent of the samples.

TMDLs are developed and implemented as part of a watershed management cycle that rotates
through the state’s 52 river basins every 5 years (see Appendix A) to evaluate waters,


                                                 24
              Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



determine impairments, and develop and implement management strategies to restore impaired
waters to their designated uses. Table 2 summarizes the five phases of the watershed
management cycle.
                 TABLE 2: PHASES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT CYCLE
       Phase 1    Preliminary evaluation of water quality
       Phase 2    Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments
       Phase 3    Development and adoption of TMDLs for waters verified as impaired
       Phase 4    Development of management strategies to achieve the TMDL(s)
       Phase 5    Implementation of TMDL(s), including monitoring and assessment


                           FIGURE 1: THE BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED




1.2 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
Rule-adopted TMDLs may be implemented through Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs),
which contain strategies to reduce and prevent pollutant discharges through various cost-
effective means. During Phase 4 of the TMDL process, FDEP and the affected stakeholders in


                                                    25
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



the various basins jointly develop BMAPs or other implementation approaches. The FWRA
contains provisions that guide the development of BMAPs and other TMDL implementation
approaches. Appendix B summarizes the statutory provisions related to BMAP development.
Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of the TMDL Program, and varies with each
phase of implementation to achieve different purposes. The BMAP development process is
structured to achieve cooperation and consensus among a broad range of interested parties.
Under statute, FDEP invites stakeholders to participate in the BMAP development process and
encourages public participation to the greatest practicable extent. FDEP holds at least one
noticed public meeting in the basin to discuss and receive comments during the planning
process. Stakeholder involvement is essential to develop, gain support for, and secure
commitments to implement the BMAP.

1.3 THE BAYOU CHICO BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
1.3.1 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The BMAP process is structured to achieve cooperation and consensus among a broad range
of interested parties. The process promotes the engagement of local stakeholders in a
coordinated and collaborative manner to address the reductions in fecal coliform bacteria
needed to achieve the Bayou Chico TMDL. It has built on existing water quality improvement
programs and local participation to address water quality problems.
Meaningful public involvement was a key component in the development of the Bayou Chico
BMAP. In February 2008, FDEP initiated the BMAP development process and held a series of
technical meetings involving key stakeholders and the general public. The purpose of the
technical meetings was to work with key stakeholders to gather information on the impaired
tributaries to aid in the development of the BMAP and to identify management actions that will
improve water quality. A total of eight meetings were held over the course of this period to aid
in information gathering, identify potential sources, define programs, projects and actions
currently underway, and to develop BMAP contents and actions that will improve water quality.
PLACEHOLDER: The Bay Area Resource Council (BARC) was briefed on _______________.
During that meeting BARC approved a resolution in support of Bayou Chico BMAP
implementation. A noticed public meeting to review, discuss, and comment on the BMAP was
held at the _______________on ______________. (& Insert any comments or specific details
relating to the meetings. Insert information relating to statements of commitment. & refer to any
letters of commitment Figure A-3./Appendix ___).


This BMAP document reflects the input of the technical stakeholders, along with public input
from workshops and meetings held to discuss important aspects of the TMDL and BMAP
development. Appendix C provides further details.

1.3.2 PLAN PURPOSE AND APPROACH

The purpose of this BMAP is to implement load reductions to achieve the fecal coliform TMDL in
the Bayou Chico Watershed. The plan outlines specific actions to achieve load reductions and
a schedule for implementation. In addition, it details a monitoring approach to identify additional
sources of fecal coliform and to track trends in water quality.



                                                26
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



This BMAP addresses six impairments for fecal coliforms in the Bayou Chico Basin, all centered
around or tributaries to the larger Bayou. Specifically, it focuses on actions that reduce fecal
coliform levels, with a goal of meeting the associated TMDL. Other water quality concerns may
benefit from these BMAP actions, such as issues with nutrients and low dissolved oxygen (DO),
while there are still other water quality concerns in the bayou, such as elevated levels of
contaminates in sediments (history of elevated levels of PCBs and dioxins/furans) that must be
addressed through programs other than the TMDL Program. It must be emphasized that this
BMAP does not address all of the water quality issues in the basin, rather this BMAP is
specifically developed to address anthropogenic sources and pathogens (fecal coliform,
Enterococcus, and other human-borne bacteria.) that may be associated with onsite septic
treatment disposal systems (OSTDS), wastewater treatment, marina activities, stormwater
treatment and other potential sources in the BMAP area.
Though considerable effort has been taken to understand the dynamics of the TMDL
waterbodies, the relationship of fecal coliform water quality exceedances to pollutant sources is
not well understood. Where specific fecal coliform sources were identified, the stakeholders
have proposed projects and activities to eliminate those sources.
For the projects and programs in this BMAP, quantitative values for pollutant load reduction
activities cannot be calculated due to the lack of scientific information on bacteria removal rates
for best management practices (BMPs) and activities that reduce fecal coliform levels. While
certain BMPs are expected to prevent or eliminate fecal coliform sources, it is not known exactly
how much of a reduction will occur in the waterbody. However, because of their positive impact,
it is anticipated that these actions will help reduce pollutant loads. Therefore, coordinated efforts
to monitor fecal coliform concentrations in conjunction with implementing projects will provide
enhanced capabilities to quantify positive effects in the future.

As a result, the expected date on which the TMDL will be achieved is difficult to predict;
however, the stakeholders do expect to achieve significant water quality improvements by the
end of the first five-year BMAP cycle through ongoing and future activities, projects, and
programs to eliminate sources outlined in this BMAP. Furthermore, stakeholders are committed
to continue future assessments of potential sources and source controls through the
implementation of projects, programs, and public education campaigns to eliminate potential
sources, as well as to monitor the water quality impairment to achieve the TMDL

1.3.3 PLAN SCOPE
In an effort to address the known impairments, FDEP consulted with key stakeholders to
describe potential sources and available information concerning water quality, spatial, and
geographic data that would be useful in the BMAP. The available data and local knowledge in
the basin pointed to the most probable sources of fecal coliform fall into six main categories (not
in order of magnitude), as follows: (1) onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS);
(2) sewer infrastructure; (3) stormwater, (4) nonpoint sources, such as pet waste; (5) marinas
located in the bayou, as well as other recreational boaters that enter the Bayou; and (6) natural
background such as wildlife (including wildlife parks, sanctuaries, rookeries, etc.)
FDEP used existing reports and the local knowledge of technical stakeholders to establish a
baseline to assist in identifying projects and additional monitoring needs, which are included in
this BMAP.
A “weight-of-evidence” approach was used to help identify likely sources of fecal coliforms and
guide follow-up reconnaissance and investigations toward corrective action. This approach
utilizes the best information available at the time to summarize impairments and identify


                                                 27
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



potential sources and then focuses on watershed management efforts and classifies priority
areas or “hot spots” to support decisions related to fecal coliform reduction efforts. This weight-
of-evidence method, in conjunction with the best professional judgment of the stakeholders who
have local knowledge of the Bayou and of likely sources, was used to aid in source identification
to the maximum extent possible. In addition, the identification of specific projects in the Bayou
Chico watershed and their proximity and expected positive outcome toward fecal coliform
reductions are taken into consideration in evaluating a weight of evidence approach.
At this time, water quality modeling has not been used to assess the temporal relationship
between the source of fecal coliform and the associated impact on the waterbody. Due to the
intrinsic variability of fecal coliform and the diffuse nature of nonpoint sources, modeling is not a
viable consideration; therefore, the weight-of-evidence approach seems the best way to assess
information on the most likely sources and a particular project’s associated benefit(s).

BMAPs do provide for phased implementation approaches pursuant to Section 403.067(7)(a)1,
Florida Statutes (F.S.). The adaptive management approach for TMDL implementation
described in this BMAP will address fecal coliform bacteria reductions and the iterative
evaluation process will continue until attainment of the TMDL. The phased BMAP approach
allows for implementation of projects designed to achieve reductions while simultaneously
implementing source assessment, monitoring, and studies to better understand fecal coliform
variability and water quality dynamics in each impaired waterbody.
This first five-year phase of the BMAP is designed to address the TMDL and the achievement of
water quality standards in the watershed. This phase may include the gathering of additional
information or studies that can be used in the development of the subsequent phase(s), which
further support TMDL implementation. This adaptive management process will continue until the
TMDL pollutant load reduction requirements are met.

A five-year milestone in this BMAP will assess and verify that adequate progress is being made
toward achieving the TMDL. During the fifth year following the BMAP adoption (anticipated date
in 2014), water quality data will again be evaluated for in-stream reductions of fecal coliform
levels within each WBID or identified “hot spots”. If significant reductions are not achieved by
the end of this five year implementation phase, additional efforts may be necessary and will be
re-evaluated. In addition, this five year milestone mark provides opportunities to further improve
source assessment and management measures going forward. Future projects that may be
identified can open opportunities for continued reductions as we move into the next phase of
implementation, with the objective being continuing trends toward reaching the target TMDL
reduction over the entire watershed.

In addition to stakeholder management actions, BMAP monitoring efforts will continue in the
basin on the long term basis. With a majority of the planned management actions being
addressed by the end of 2012, water quality data collected after 2008 began showing some
reductions in fecal coliform levels. There are a number of well established long term monitoring
stations in the watershed that will continue to be monitored on a weekly or monthly basis for
both fecal coliform counts and for Entercoccus bacteria by the Escambia County Health
Department (Sanders and Bayou Chico Beach). There are also other monitoring stations that
are regularly monitored by Escambia County and the Bream Fisherman’s Association in this
basin. In addition, the University of West Florida established a number of monitoring points in
their 2001-2003 study of urban watersheds that included Bayou Chico. That study provided
additional baseline data and information relating to particular hot spots where fecal coliform and
Entercoccus bacteria count were measured.


                                                 28
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




This BMAP details a monitoring approach to identify additional sources of fecal coliform and to
track trends in water quality. FDEP will meet with stakeholders at least annually to review
progress made towards achieving the TMDLs.

In summary, the implementation of key projects and actions identified in this plan along with the
implementation of the monitoring plan should achieve water quality improvements, and
management actions will be adjusted as needed to show continued progress.


1.3.4 SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORT APPROACH AND DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY

Fecal coliform can be highly variable and easily transported, making it difficult, in many cases,
to identify the source of the bacteria. Based on the potential sources in each WBID, the
stakeholders were asked to identify activities they have completed that will reduce or remove
bacteria sources since 1995 (the start of the TMDL verified period) as well as additional efforts
that are currently under way or planned in the next five years. Escambia County, Emerald
Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), City of Pensacola, Escambia County Health Department, Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 3, West Florida Regional Planning Council (in
association with the Bay Are Resource Council) and the Bayou Chico Association all submitted
project sheets and program descriptions for the prevention, reduction, and source removal
activities they conduct in the BMAP planning area and/or on a county (or city)-wide basis. FDEP
then used a “sufficiency of effort” approach to conduct a WBID-specific assessment of the
potential sources, and cumulative projects and activities that address or eliminate fecal coliform
loading. This sufficiency of effort evaluation was not an assessment of each agency’s individual
activities; rather, it was focused on whether the activities submitted by all entities corresponds to
potential sources or hot spots identified and whether the total efforts were adequate to eliminate
the known sources, assess unknown sources, and prevent the development of new sources.

During a sufficiency of effort evaluation, FDEP reviews the following information about each
WBID:
       • Documentation of the most likely sources;
       • A GIS database to determine the spatial and temporal distribution of the sources based
       on existing land use and activities;
       • Permit and water quality information;
       • Relevant field information and published data; and,
       • The completed corrective actions.

As the evaluation was conducted, the agencies’ programs and activities for each type of source
were recorded in a table summarizing restoration activities (see Summary of Restoration
Activities in Chapters 3-6). Because the controllable sources (sewer infrastructure, septic tanks,
and stormwater conveyances) vary considerably among the WBIDs, the actions and
responsibilities of the stakeholders also vary considerably in the watershed.

The criterion for sufficiency for OSTDS-related efforts included the following: designation as a
septic tank (OSTDS) failure or nuisance area in accordance with Escambia County Health
Department requirements, as described in Chapter 4 and Ordinance #____ (further described
in Section 4.2 and in Appendix ___), which prioritizes these areas for transition to sewer
service; status of OSTDS phase-outs to sewer in critical OSTD failure areas; number of



                                                 29
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



complaint investigations and any resulting enforcement actions; the number of septic tank repair
permits and proximity of the repair sites to surface waters or stormwater inlets. In addition,
program implementation was evaluated for efforts such as inspections, training programs, plan
reviews and site visits, as well as the regulation of annual operating permits. Local ordinances
were also evaluated for their ability to proactively address potential OSTDS failures.

The evaluation of efforts for sewer infrastructure included a determination of the percentage of
the infrastructure within the waterbody boundary with recent sewer line upgrades (cured in place
pipe, pipe bursting, and open cut and removal). In addition, the number of rebuilt pump stations
was compared with the sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) history to determine if a previous
problem was addressed through repairs and upgrades. Rehabilitated manholes can also
prevent overflows from occurring at the manhole and potentially into surface waters or the
stormwater system; therefore, manhole rehabilitation and monitoring efforts have been
evaluated. Additional sanitary sewer programs that occur on a system-wide or county-wide
basis, including air release valve (ARV) inspection and rehabilitation, SSO investigations, and
sewer line inspection and cleaning, and infiltration and inflow programs were also evaluated as
measures to prevent and control sewer infrastructure as a potential fecal coliform source.

The stormwater sufficiency evaluations included a review of flood control projects (which reduce
fecal coliform loading by preventing water from inundating septic systems) and stormwater
BMPs, such as wet/dry retention and baffle boxes (which reduce sediment buildup that can
provide a breeding ground for fecal coliform). Consideration is also given to the maintenance of
stormwater ditches, ponds, and closed conveyances to prevent debris, vegetation, dense tree
canopy, and sediment from potentially providing conditions that would allow new sources of
fecal coliform bacteria.

Another important activity that was evaluated was the detection and removal of illicit
connections to stormwater conveyances to eliminate illegal discharges that can contribute fecal
coliform and other pollutants into surface waters. Stormwater-related program implementation
also includes public education campaigns, the Adopt-A-Highway Program, street sweeping, the
Drainage Connection Permit and inspection programs, all of which may reduce contaminants
from entering stormwater conveyance systems. Additionally, stakeholders (through the Bay
Area Resource Council and the Bayou Chico Association) are developing and implementing pet
waste programs, Clean Marina and Clean Vessel Programs and other public education
campaigns using public service announcements, website content, conferences, and printed
handouts to raise awareness through public outreach and education.

In addition to efforts specific to each source, the entities will also participate in special source
assessment activities. The activities will include strategic sampling of several WBIDs and follow-
up sampling at locations where high counts occur in an effort to identify potential sources or
suspect hot spots.

Based on source assessments and information gathered for this BMAP, a summary of
restoration activities (Section ___) was produced to ensure that appropriate programs and
activities were being implemented for the most likely sources that would either decrease or
eliminate the known sources, or that may be needed to further assess fecal coliform loadings.
The full implementation of the management actions/projects identified in this BMAP (is deemed
sufficient) to address the fecal coliform bacteria reductions needed to meet the TMDLs.




                                                 30
                  Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



1.3.5 POLLUTANT REDUCTION AND DISCHARGE ALLOCATIONS

1.3.5.1 Categories for Rule Allocations
The rules adopting TMDLs must establish reasonable and equitable allocations that will alone,
or in conjunction with other management and restoration activities, attain the TMDL. Allocations
may be to individual sources, source categories, or basins that discharge to the impaired
waterbody. The allocations identify either how much pollutant discharge in colonies per day
each source designation may continue to contribute (discharge allocation), or the colonies per
day, or the percent of its loading the source designation must reduce (reduction allocation).
Currently, the TMDL allocation categories are as follows:
Wasteload Allocation – The allocation to point sources permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program includes the following:
             o   Wastewater Allocation is the allocation to industrial and domestic
                 wastewater facilities.
                     NPDES Stormwater Allocation is the allocation to NPDES
                      stormwater permittees that operate municipal separate storm sewer
                      systems (MS4s). These permittees are treated as point sources
                      under the TMDL Program.
             o   Load Allocation is the allocation to nonpoint sources, including
                 agricultural runoff and stormwater from areas that are not covered by
                 an MS4.
This approach is consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.2[I]), which state that TMDLs
can be expressed in terms of mass per time (e.g., pounds per day), toxicity, or other appropriate
measure. The TMDL for the Bayou Chico Watershed is expressed in terms of percent reduction,
and represents the maximum annual fecal coliform load the watershed can assimilate and
maintain the fecal coliform criterion.

1.3.5.2 Initial and Detailed Allocations
Under the FWRA, the TMDL allocation in rule may be an “initial” allocation among point and
nonpoint sources. In such cases, the “detailed” allocation to specific point sources and specific
categories of nonpoint sources must be established in the BMAP. The FWRA further states that
the BMAP may make detailed allocations to individual “basins” (i.e., sub-basins) or to all basins
as a whole, as appropriate. Both initial and detailed allocations must be determined based on a
number of factors listed in the FWRA, including cost-benefit, technical and environmental
feasibility, implementation time frames, and others (see Appendix B).
Due to the nature of fecal coliform impairments, this BMAP does not specify detailed allocations.
It is difficult to attribute the fecal coliform loads to specific sources because bacteria are highly
variable and can be easily transported. In addition, research and information is not available
that quantifies the expected fecal coliform reduction from project implementation. Instead of
assigning detailed allocations, a sufficiency of effort evaluation (as described in Section 1.3.4)
was conducted to assess whether the management actions provided by the entities in the basin
were sufficient to address the potential sources of fecal coliform identified in the watershed, or
from known or suspected areas of high exceedances of water quality criterion.

1.3.6 BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED FECAL COLIFORM TMDL
The water quality criterion for fecal coliform bacteria is detailed in Rule 62-302, F.A.C. The
requirements for exceeding maximum fecal coliform concentrations in a Class III waterbody are
stated as follows:


                                                        31
                  Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



        The most probable number (MPN) or membrane filter (MF) counts per 100 milliliters
        (mL) of fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed
        400 in 10% of samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day.
FDEP has verified six WBIDs in the Bayou Chico Watershed as impaired for fecal coliform
bacteria and adopted a TMDL to address these impairments in February 2008. Table 3 lists the
TMDL and pollutant load allocations adopted by rule the watershed.
                              TABLE 3: BAYOU CHICO FECAL COLIFORM TMDL
                                                                      WASTELOAD ALLOCATION (WLA)
                                                   TMDL (%             WASTEWATER         NPDES             LOAD
                WBID                              REDUCTION)         (COUNTS/100ML)    STORMWATER        ALLOCATION*
  Bayou Chico Watershed (WBIDS 846,                                 Point sources must
                                                    61%                                     61%             61%
 846A, 846B, 846C, 846CB, and 848DA)                                meet permit limits
                                             th     th
    * The percent reduction is based on the 10 to 90 percentile of recurrence intervals minus the WLA.


1.3.7      HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN BAYOU CHICO

Pensacola Bay is a saline bay with about a one-half mile channel to the Gulf of Mexico. The
Bay is the receiving body of water for Escambia and East Bays, and Bayous Texar, Chico and
Grande. Flushing of the Bay is adequate though water quality problems exist due to non-point
and point sources and urbanization. Bayou Chico has had a long history of human activities
and associated problems including stormwater runoff, wastewater inputs, nutrient enrichment,
and contaminated sediments from urban runoff and industrial pollution. Prior to 1971, there were
at least eight industrial and domestic wastewater discharges into Bayou Chico. Both the
Northwest Florida Water Management District and the University of West Florida have published
studies that indicated the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
pentachlorophenols (PCPs) and trace metals in both the sediments and water (NWFWMD,
1994; Mohrherr, et. al. 2006). The Bayou is adjacent to the American Creosote Works site, a
Priorities List site that may be affecting the Bayou. A review of scientific literature shows that
the quality of the water and sediments in Bayou Chico has been, and is still affected, by a
variety of pollutants. “In the 1970’s, organic pollutants were found to be many times higher than
typical values for coastal sediments” (Mohrherr, et. al. 2006). A recent PERCH Study (2006)
found elevated levels of PCBs and dioxins/furans in seafood from the Bayou. Trace metals
have also been found to be elevated in the main part of the Bayou and between two topographic
constrictions in the northern half of the Bayou. Organisms affected by the pollution of the Bayou
have diminished in density and diversity. There are also two other nearby industrial sites that
have documented environmental problems though their impact on the Bayou is not well known.

The lower portion of Bayou Chico was dredged in March-August 2008. The Northwest Florida
Water Management district partnered with US Army Corps of Engineers on the project. Spoil
was placed in the northwest pond of the Clark Sand Pit. The NWFWMD was monitoring during
and following the deposition to determine the quality of water discharging into Jackson Branch
Creek and to track saltwater movement into lower water zone and into nearby wells. A potential
issue that still is unknown is the behavior of the contaminants in the spoils after disposal. Even
though these pollutants may not pose a direct threat to humans due to limited direct contact with
the sediments of Bayou Chico, they do have the potential to indirectly affect human health.
While these and other water quality issues in the Bayou are very well documented, the impacts
and solutions are beyond the scope of this BMAP. These water quality issues are, however,
being addressed by other programs other than the TMDL Program and are valid concerns in
terms of both water quality and future restoration efforts.


                                                               32
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




Chronic fecal coliform contamination in a number of waterways in Pensacola Bay has also been
well documented (Snyder, 2003; Maestre, 2008). Snyder conducted a multi-year study (2001-
2003) to identify sources of loadings of fecal coliforms and Enterococci within the urban bayous
in Pensacola Bay, which included Bayou Chico. Sampling stations were selected to coincide
with stormwater drains, perennial streams, and areas of likely groundwater discharges.
Spatially explicit loading in the bayou was evident. Dr. Synder found that concentrations of fecal
bacteria decreased along the salinity gradient of the system as a general trend, indicating that
the freshwater tributaries and residential areas of the bayou were primary sources to the
system, and that older residential areas using septic tanks in low lying areas were the likely
sources. In other nearby urban bayous, residential areas served by older sewer lines and/or
affected by rainfall were evident as the likely sources. Other available literature, including the
City of Pensacola’s “Bayou Chico: Stormwater Needs Assessment” (Baskerville-Donovan, Inc.
2004), also suggest that structural and non-structural alternatives should be considered to
address potential sources of runoff pollution, such as eliminating septic tanks in areas where
sanitary sewer is available, and educating residents and businesses in the area on proper septic
tank maintenance and cleaning, as well as on proper disposal methods for animal waste for
implementation in all basins they evaluated.

1.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
The water quality impacts of BMAP implementation are based on several fundamental
assumptions about the pollutants targeted by the TMDL, modeling approaches, waterbody
response, and natural processes. In addition, there are important considerations to keep in
mind about the nature of the BMAP and its long-term implementation.

1.4.1 ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions were made during the BMAP process:

       • Load reductions for stormwater discharges are typically expressed as a percent
       reduction because it is difficult to quantify the loads from MS4s (given the numerous
       discharge points) and to distinguish MS4 loads from other nonpoint sources (given the
       diffuse nature of stormwater transport).

       •Bacteria loads from specific sources cannot be quantified because they are highly
       variable and not well understood. Thus it is not possible to calculate a specific bacterial
       load for a specific source. Rather, a percent reduction in load, calculated from stream
       load, not source to stream, is the best way to quantify the necessary reduction.

       • The technical stakeholders evaluated the known sources of bacteria contributing to the
       impairment in each waterbody and whether there was strong evidence of responsibility.
       Affected stakeholders then determined projects to address these problems and included
       these projects in the BMAP.

       • In cases where the sources were unknown, stakeholder groups determined appropriate
       assessment programs to investigate the sources of bacteria loadings.

       • It is difficult to determine the quantitative load reductions expected from management
       actions to decrease fecal coliforms due to a lack of literature values and high variability;


                                                33
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



       therefore, the benefits of these management actions were evaluated on a qualitative
       basis by matching elimination, reduction, and prevention activities to known or potential
       sources.
       • Flood control projects are included as BMAP activities because these projects help to
       reduce flooding after a storm event, reducing the amount of fecal coliform loading to the
       nearby waterbody through stormwater runoff. Programs such as Adopt–A-Highway,
       Drainage Connection Permits, street sweeping and inspection programs are also
       important because they remove trash, sediment, debris, and pollutants from roadways
       that would otherwise be transported to stormwater systems and surface waters. Fecal
       coliforms can be transported in sediments and debris, and these materials can also
       create a breeding ground for bacteria. Therefore, flood control projects and roadway
       clean-up programs were given credit in this BMAP as actions that may reduce fecal
       coliforms.
       • The penetration of ultraviolet (UV) light into waters and sediments may aid fecal
       coliform die-off and prevent bacteria regrowth. Therefore, attention was paid to any
       restoration efforts that include the maintenance of stormwater ditches, ponds, and
       closed conveyance systems to prevent debris, removal of vegetation or dense tree
       canopy, and sediment erosion control from potentially providing conditions that would
       allow new sources of fecal coliform bacteria.


1.4.2 CONSIDERATIONS
This BMAP requires all stakeholders to implement projects and programs to achieve fecal
coliform load reductions as soon as practicable. However, the full implementation of this BMAP
will be a long-term process. While some of the projects and activities contained in the BMAP
were recently completed or are currently ongoing, several projects require more time to design,
secure funding, and construct. While funding the projects could be an issue, funding limitations
do not affect the requirement that every entity must implement the activities listed in the BMAP.
Since BMAP implementation is a long-term process, the TMDL targets established for the
Bayou Chico Watershed may not be achieved in the next five years. It may take even longer for
the waterbody to respond to reduced loadings and fully meet applicable water quality standards.
Regular follow-up and continued coordination and communication by the stakeholders will be
essential to ensure the implementation of management strategies and assessment of their
incremental effects. Any additional management actions required to achieve the TMDL, if
necessary, will be developed as part of BMAP follow-up.
As part of this BMAP, stakeholders have committed to a wide variety of management
actions/projects. Activities fall into the following categories:

• Public Education and Outreach;

• Wastewater Infrastructure Management;

• Stormwater Management Program;

• Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines;;

• Restoration, Land Acquisition and Water Quality Improvements; and
• Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and Assessment



                                               34
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



1.5 FUTURE GROWTH IN THE WATERSHED
The FWRA (Paragraph 403.067[7][a][2], F.S.) requires that BMAPs “identify the mechanisms by
which potential future increases in pollutant loading will be addressed.”
As required by the FWRA, fecal coliform loadings associated with future growth were
considered as part of the BMAP. Much of the areas surrounding the Bayou are already
urbanized, and consist of older, well-established residential subdivisions, industrial and
commercial uses. Since these watersheds are mostly developed, any future growth in these
areas is not expected to substantially increase fecal coliform loadings to the creeks.

Any new development or re-development would be connected to the existing or future sanitary
sewer system infrastructure, as opposed to septic tanks, where the wastewater will be treated to
high levels. The vast majority of anticipated residential areas and re-development areas
(Warrington basin, for example) in the watershed has/will have centralized sewer available. In
addition, recent upgrades included in the relocation plans for the Main Street Wastewater
Treatment plant will also provide advanced and improved secondary or tertiary treatment with
high-level disinfection. The availability of sewer infrastructure, where it did not previously exist
in the Bayou Chico watershed, along with best management practices implemented for any
structural works associated with any new development or re-developed areas (e.g. stormwater
treatment facilities) should diminish any direct (and indirect) discharges into the basin’s rivers
and creeks. Where sewer service is not available, ECHD will review septic tank plans and
evaluates sites before issuing new permits, so that the new systems are correctly designed,
placed, and operated to prevent further fecal coliform loading.




                                                 35
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



 CHAPTER 2: POLLUTANT SOURCES AND ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
2.1 FECAL COLIFORM POLLUTANT SOURCES
The following sections summarize the general types of sources associated with fecal coliform
impairments. Additional details on these sources in the watershed can be found in Chapter 3
through 6.

2.1.1 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS

A sanitary sewer system (i.e., public and privately owned sewer infrastructure) may contribute
fecal coliform pollution to the environment through the slow and continuous leakage of sanitary
sewer infrastructure, treatment failure in wastewater treatment plants, and SSOs. Common
causes of SSOs may include the following:

       1. Heavy rainfall resulting in the inflow of stormwater or infiltration of ground water into
       sewer lines;
       2. Breaks or blockages in sewer lines due to aging infrastructure or the accumulation of
       grease; and
       3. Malfunctioning equipment and pumps (possibly due to power failures).

It is not clear how much leaking sewer infrastructure below ground may contribute to surface
water contamination. Although there is evidence that in some soils, bacteria do not readily
transport to nearby surface waters, there are no local data for bacterial transport in the soil
types and ground water conditions in the Bayou Chico Basin.

Underground sanitary sewer pipes can leak. When ground water levels are low or the pressure
in the sanitary sewer pipes is greater than the surrounding pressure of ground water, it is
possible that wastewater in the sanitary sewer pipes can exfiltrate out through the leaks in the
pipes and into the surrounding ground water and potentially migrate to adjacent surface waters.
When ground water levels are high, ground water surrounding the pipes can infiltrate into the
leaks in the sanitary sewer pipes. Surface water associated with flooding also can inflow into the
sanitary sewer pipes when stormwater pipes are connected illegally to the sanitary sewer pipes.
In addition, surface water and/or ground water can inflow into the sanitary sewer pipes when the
caps are off sanitary sewer laterals or when there are holes in the sanitary sewer pipes.

A California study (Brown and Caldwell, 2005) suggests that high water tables do not usually
result in the exfiltration of sewage from pipes or couplings into ground water. Rather, as
indicated above, ground water is more likely to infiltrate into the collection system. Some studies
suggest that the transport of sewage and fecal coliform bacteria into ground water depends on
many factors, with one of the largest being the difference in hydraulic head between the sewage
and the ground water table. According to a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
study, “The occurrence of exfiltration is limited to those areas where sewer elevations lie above
the ground water table. Since ground water elevations near surface water bodies are typically
near the ground surface, sewers near surface water bodies are generally below the ground
water table, and infiltration (rather than exfiltration) will dominate as the mode of sewer leakage
in these areas (Amick and Burgess, 2003).” It is important to note there are some areas in the
Bayou Chico basin that have a relatively high water table, and therefore infiltration may be the
primary form of sewer leakage in those areas.



                                                 36
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



A watershed tour was conducted with stakeholders in February 2009 to gain a better
understanding of potential sources in the Bayou and insight on the best monitoring strategies
that may help track water quality improvements over time. In addition to evaluating areas of the
watershed that are not currently sewered, the group discussed potential areas where septic tank
failures or poor siting of those facilities may be a contributing source.

The ECUA sanitary sewer system serves the majority of the watershed (estimated at more than
___%). Therefore, it is possible that the sewer system and the associated infrastructure could
contribute to the impairments in these areas, especially where this infrastructure crosses or is
located near the Bayou. A number of watersheds in the surrounding area have had SSOs with
the potential to impact surface waters, but response times have been minimized and the
problems addressed through proactive action.

The replacement of the Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (MSWWTP) is a very
significant public works project undertaking in Escambia County in recent years. The goal was
finding long-range solutions to the sewage treatment needs of the community and it addresses
another potential source problem posed during heavy storm events, including hurricanes. The
importance of replacing the MSWWTP was emphasized when Hurricane Ivan struck Pensacola
in September 2004, rendering the plant inoperable for three days and causing the release of
raw sewage into the streets of Pensacola. It was estimated that Hurricane Ivan, with its wind-
driven saltwater, aged the already outdated plant by approximately 10 years. The new facility,
located near Cantonment, will have increased capacity (20 mgd to 22.5 mgd) and will be located
above the Category 5 level storm surge. It is expected to be fully operational by the end of
2010. (??)

(reword as necessary: the following comes from meeting minutes, ECUA 2009 Annual Report
and personal communications with ECUA Reps but we need additional detail from ECUA &
proper placement.) ECUA to provide additional information

2.1.2 ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (or OSTDs) consist of a septic tank and a
subsurface wastewater infiltration system, or drainfield, where most of the treatment occurs in
the soil above the water table. The drainfield and underlying soils are the most critical
components of septic systems for the treatment of wastewater. Under Subsection 64E-
6.002(23), F.A.C., a failing septic system is one that is not functioning in a sanitary manner and
that may result in the transport of untreated or partially treated wastewater to surface waters.

OSTDS failure can be due to a number of causes, including unsuitable soil conditions, flooding,
improper design and installation, or inadequate maintenance practices. Improperly functioning
septic systems are often recognized as a significant contributor of pollutants, including
microbiological pathogens (Nicosia et al., 2001; McDowell et al., 2005). These failing systems
may result in obvious sanitary hazards, such as ponding on the ground and runoff into surface
waters or stormwater collection systems, and less conspicuous nuisances, including the
leaching of untreated wastewater into ground water. As noted above, certain areas of the
watershed have relatively high water tables, which could potentially transport fecal coliforms
from septic tanks through shallow ground water into the Jackson or Jones Creek tributaries, or
the Bayou.




                                                37
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



The majority of households in the Lakewood Subdivision, for example, located just south of
Bayou Chico beach, are on septic. Historically, most of the residential and commercial areas
located in this watershed used OSTDS prior to ECUA’s recent sewer expansion program. Local
stakeholders have pointed out that these older septic systems are a likely contributor to the
fecal coliform concentrations and the impairment in these waterbodies.

Septic tank failure areas are being tracked and evaluated by the Escambia County Health
Department (ECHD). ECHD has issued repair permits for septic tanks in all the surrounding
WBIDs of Bayou Chico. The locations of the repair permits closely correspond with the failure
areas in older subdivisions, like Lakewood and Edgewater, and particularly in the areas
adjacent to the freshwater tributaries of Bayou Chico, e.g., Jones and Jackson Branch
tributaries.
It is estimated that there are approximately ___ onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems
(OSTDs) in the Bayou Chico watershed. The principal location for OSTDs in the watershed
include the older residential neighborhoods of the Lakewood subdivision (estimated ___ homes
with septic tanks) and the Edgewater development which has undergone significant conversions
from septic to sanitary sewer as that has become available in the last six years.

2.1.3 STORMWATER

The term “nonpoint sources” is used to describe intermittent, rainfall-driven, diffuse sources of
pollution (e.g., stormwater runoff) associated with everyday human activities, including runoff
from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and mining; discharges from failing septic
systems; and atmospheric deposition. Additional nonpoint sources may include areas with
concentrated wildlife (e.g., bird rookeries) or domestic animals (e.g., dog parks). Certain land
uses are likely to contribute fecal coliform loading to surface waters, including agricultural
activities and marinas. Runoff from agricultural areas containing animals (e.g., livestock grazing,
dairies, cattle farms, or concentrated animal feeding operations [CAFOs]) can contribute a
significant amount of fecal contamination to surface waters.

Sediments in streambeds can allow stormwater conveyance systems, especially those
underground, to act as reservoirs for contamination as bacteria persist and possibly regrow in
the sediments. These sediment bacteria sources can periodically result in the influx of high
levels of bacteria to receiving waters (Anderson et al., 2005; Brownell et al., 2007). Bacteria
from sediments could potentially be an issue in areas such as Jones Swamp and in certain
areas of the Jackson Creek tributary, where the majority of the watershed (more than 50%) is
served by stormwater treatment areas or highly urbanized. Agricultural runoff is not an issue in
the Bayou Chico watershed, as this watershed includes principally residential, commercial and
industrial uses.

Illicit connections to a stormwater system can also contribute to fecal coliform loading.
Escambia County and the FDOT have ongoing programs to identify potential illicit connections
(PICs) to MS4 conveyances and to waterbodies. As part of this program, they verified and
remove illicit connections through their regulatory programs. Open PIC cases for Escambia
County and FDOT are unknown, but the results of any investigations into PICs will be reported
in the first annual BMAP progress report.




                                                38
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



2.1.4 MARINA ACTIVITIES

Marinas that provide onsite waste disposal areas (pump out stations) can leak or overflow and
can dump raw sewage directly into a waterbody. Marinas that do not provide onsite waste
disposal areas can be much larger sources of contamination if boaters discharge their waste
directly into waterbodies. There is a number (___) of existing marinas in the watershed that
represent potential sources for fecal contamination to surface waters.

The Florida Clean Marina Programs are designed to bring awareness to marine facilities and
boaters regarding environmentally friendly practices intended to protect and preserve Florida’s
waterways. Marinas, boatyards and marine retailers receive clean designations by
demonstrating a commitment implementing and maintaining a host of best management
practices. These measures address critical environmental issues such as sensitive habitat,
waste management, stormwater control, spill prevention and emergency preparedness.
Designated facilities and those facilities seeking designation receive ongoing technical support
from the Florida Clean Marina Program and the Clean Boating Partnership.
Another effective program that specifically addresses potential contaminant sources from
marina activities is the Clean Vessel Act (CVA). CVA is a federally funded grant program
administered by the Florida Clean Marina Program for the construction of pumpout facilities and
pumpout vessels at marina and boatyard sites. The CVA program also supports educational
and public awareness programs on the importance and practice of keeping raw sewage out of
Florida’s waterways.

2.1.5 WILDLIFE
In some segments of the Bayou Chico watershed, wildlife may be a significant source of fecal
coliforms, especially in areas, such as the Jones Creek swamp, where there is considerable
acreages of wetlands, upland forest, or wooded corridors. While wildlife is a contributing source
of fecal coliform loading to the tributaries, this is considered a background concentration and
uncontrollable source in the BMAP. Stakeholders are not asked to remove or discourage wildlife
near the Bayou. However, the stakeholders have noted instances or indicators of wildlife, where
additional sampling may help correlate potential sources with the fecal coliform concentrations.

2.2 WATER QUALITY TRENDS IN THE WATERSHED
FDEP used the IWR to assess water quality impairments in the Bayou Chico Watershed based
on fecal coliform data within the verification period, which was January 1, 1998 through June 30,
2005. Five of the six waterbody segments in the watershed have been verified impaired for
fecal coliform: Bayou Chico (WBID 846), Jones Creek (WBID 846A), Jackson Creek (WBID
846B), Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB), and Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA). These
waterbody segments, along with Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C), comprise the Bayou Chico
Watershed (FDEP, 2008).
Samples were collected in all months of the year, and exceedances occurred in each of the
months. There were at least 64 samples collected during each month, with the greatest number
of samples (105) collected in March and December. The number of exceedances ranges from
4 in January, to 35 in September. Greater than 50 percent exceedances occurred in all months
except January, February, and March (FDEP, 2008).
For all of the long term monitoring stations with (nearly) ten-year records (Jackson Creek,
21FLBFA 33020146; Bayou Chico Drain, 21FLBFA 33020JF1; Upper Bayou Chico, 21FLBFA
3302JE20; Jones Creek, 21FLBFA 33020118; Bayou Chico Beach, 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA96;


                                               39
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



and Bayou Chico proper, 21FLPNS 33020JD4), there has been a general trend of declining
fecal coliform concentrations and a declining number of exceedances of both the 800 single-
sample criterion and the 400 geomean criterion. The trends, however, are not statistically
significant, and all stations (except Upper Bayou Chico) have had exceedances of both criteria
in one of the most recent three years of record. So while the trends are promising, there is still
work to be done in reducing fecal coliform inputs.

2.3 ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
Although the relationship between fecal coliform loading and sources is not fully understood, the
implementation of the projects and programs in this BMAP should improve water quality in the
impaired tributaries. The following outcomes are expected from BMAP implementation:
        • Improved water quality trends in the Bayou Chico watershed that will also help
       improve water quality in the surrounding Bays (Escambia/Pensacola Bay);
       • Attainment of the TMDLs;
       • Decreased loading of the target pollutant (fecal coliform bacteria);
       • Increased coordination between state and local governments and within divisions of
       local governments in problem solving for surface water quality restoration;
       • Securing additional state and local funding for water quality restoration;
       • Improved communication and cooperation among local agencies, allowing a more
       effective response to restoration needs;
       • Determination of effective projects through the stakeholder decision-making and
       priority-setting processes;
       • Enhanced public awareness of pollutant sources, pollutant impacts on water quality,
       and corresponding corrective actions; and,
       •Enhanced understanding of basin hydrology, water quality, and pollutant sources.




                                                40
              Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                 CHAPTER 3: SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
3.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
[Discuss potential wastewater treatment facility and sewer infrastructure sources in the
watershed.]

3.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
[Describe what projects and programs have been or will be implemented to address sanitary
sewer system sources. Include tables of projects for each entity – example table below.]




                                           41
                                     Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                             TABLE 4: ECUA ACTIVITIES THAT ADDRESS SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SOURCES
 PROJECT                                                                                           ESTIMATED                      PROJECT
 NUMBER         PROJECT NAME              PROJECT DESCRIPTION               LEVEL OF EFFORT          COST      FUNDING SOURCE     STATUS
                                       Construction of sewage       Sewer Extensions in area
 ECUA – 1    Lakewood Phase I          collection system - 183      previously served by septic
                                       connections established      tanks                                                        Completed
                                       Construction of sewage       Sewer Extensions in area
ECUA– 2      Lakewood Phase II)        collection system - 85       previously served by septic
                                       connections established      tanks                                                        Completed
                                       Construction of sewage       Sewer Extensions in area
 ECUA– 3     Lakewood Phase III        collection system - 112      previously served by septic
                                       connections established      tanks                                                        Completed
                                                                                                                  Community
 ECUA &                                                             Sewer Extensions in area                     Development
Escambia     Lakewood Phase IV         Sewer Extension Project      previously served by septic                 Business Grant
County – 4                                                          tanks                                      (CDBG) (through
                                                                                                                    HUD)         In Design
ECUA and                                                            Sewer Extensions in area
Escambia     Lakewood Phase V          Sewer Expansion Project      previously served by septic
County - 5                                                          tanks                                        CDBG (HUD)      In Design
 ECUA &                                                             Sewer Extensions in area                     Partly funded
 Escambia    Lakewood Phase VI         Sewer Expansion Project      previously served by septic                 through CDBG     Portions in
 County- 6                                                          tanks                                           (HUD)        Design
                                       Construction of sewage       Sewer Extensions in area
ECUA– 7      Edgewater Phase I         collection system - 74       previously served by septic                     ECUA
                                       connections established      tanks                                                        Completed
                                       Construction of sewage       Sewer Extensions in area
 ECUA –8     Edgewater Phase II        collection system - 295      previously served by septic                     ECUA
                                       connections established      tanks                                                        Completed
             Fats, Oils & Grease
ECUA - 9       (FOG) Program                                                                      Unknown                        Ongoing
                                                                                                                    ECUA
             Inflow & Infiltration
ECUA - 10         Program                                                                                                        Ongoing
                                                                                                                    ECUA
                                       Respond & clean-up
ECUA-11      SSO Response Plan         sanitary Sewer Overflows                                                                  Ongoing
                                                                                                                    ECUA
ECUA -12     Emergency Power           Installation of generators   Sewer Upgrades/Repairs                          ECUA         Completed



                                                                       42
                                    Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


 PROJECT                                                                                        ESTIMATED                     PROJECT
 NUMBER        PROJECT NAME              PROJECT DESCRIPTION                 LEVEL OF EFFORT      COST      FUNDING SOURCE    STATUS
             Generator Program        at WWTP

                                      ____# of upgrades in
ECUA - 13   Lift Station Upgrades
                                      Watershed?                                                                             Ongoing
                                      Enforcement by
                                      notification and tracking of
                                      conversion compliance,
               Septic to Sewer        751 notices sent in areas;
DOH - 14                                                             Enforcement Programs      Unknown                       Ongoing
            Enforcement Program       113 still within connect
                                      timeframe; 40 in non-
                                      compliance




                                                                        43
              Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




3.3 SUMMARY OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORTS
[Discuss activities named above and whether they are sufficient to address the potential
sources from the sanitary sewer system that have been identified.]




                                           44
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                                CHAPTER 4: OSTDS
4.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
[Discuss potential septic tank sources in the watershed.]


4.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
[Describe specific projects and programs that have been or will be implemented to address
septic tank sources. Include tables of projects for each entity – example table below.]

4.2.1. PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS OSTDS AS SOURCES OF FECAL COLIFORM
CONTAMINATION
ESCAMBIA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT (ECHD)
ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM (OSTDS) PROGRAM

The objective of the OSTDS Program is to provide safe and sanitary treatment and disposal of
domestic and commercial sewage waste in the areas not served by public sewerage systems.
Generally, OSTDS present no public health problems when they are properly designed,
installed, and maintained on sites having satisfactory soil and drainage features. However,
where an installation site is unsuitable, and where no modification of the property is possible or
practical, the use of an OSTDS may contaminate ground or surface waters. The primary goals
of ECHD are to protect public health by eliminating the potential for the spread of infectious
disease caused by improperly built or maintained OSTDS, and to protect ground and surface
water from OSTDS discharge.

ECHD is responsible for all operational aspects of the OSTDS Program, as described in Rule
64E-6, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). To accomplish its program goals and objective,
ECHD utilizes the expertise of DOH certified supervisors, DOH certified field inspectors, and
administrative support staff. In addition, the ECHD office has a field inspector to perform
complaint investigations and address legal cases.

During the permitting process, the OSTDS staff provides many services including, but not
limited to, the following:

      Application/plan review;
      Site evaluation;
      System construction permitting;
      Installation inspection

ECHD must review all applications for construction permits relating to the installation,
modification, replacement, or repair of OSTDS and determine within the time limitations
prescribed by the Florida Administrative Procedures Act, Section 120.60, F.S., whether to issue
or deny a permit. The goal for the average number of days to issue a new construction permit is
eight days and two days for a repair permit.

The review process involves a determination as to whether the site location and installation will
comply with standards set forth in Chapter 381, F.S. and Rule 64E-6, F.A.C. The ECHD also


                                                45
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



inspects and evaluates all new installations, repairs, abandonments, or modifications of OSTDS;
inspections are made to ensure adequate tank construction and capacity, fill material if needed,
drain field size, elevation, cover, dosing system construction, distance from surface water and
potable wells, and other regulatory requirements. The ECHD also inspects existing OSTDS for
compliance when there is a change of use or occupancy. When Escambia County’s Building
and Zoning Department receives an application for a building permit, when a zoning change is
requested, or when the county receives an application for occupational license, the applicant will
be referred to the ECHD office for OSTDS review.

When a building served by an OSTDS is located in an area zoned or used for
industrial/manufacturing purposes, or where a business generates commercial sewerage waste,
ECHD issues an annual operating permit and requires at least one compliance inspection per
year. The updated listings of these properties are identified by ECHD staff.

In addition to the actual permitting process for OSTDS systems, ECHD also regulates the
OSTDS maintenance industries. Service permits are issued to the following facilities annually,
and ECHD performs one to two compliance inspections each year, as follows, depending on the
type of facility:

      Septic disposal services;
      Lime stabilization facilities;
      Land application facilities;
      Portable or temporary toilet services; and
      Septic tank manufacturers.

When an inspection determines that an ECHD-issued OSTDS permit is out of compliance, the
inspector notifies the appropriate parties in writing with the appropriate violations noted as
referenced in Florida Statute and Florida Administrative Code. .

Most cases in Escambia County are corrected without further enforcement. For those cases
that require enforcement, the ECHD has its own attorney to take cases to court. FDEP law
enforcement becomes involved in cases of willful pollution. The ECHD computer database
includes a record of all complaints and investigations. This database is updated daily and may
include approximately 10 to 15 complaints per week.

ECHD RESEARCH PROGRAM

In September 2006, Dr. Richard Snyder, Ph.D., with the Center for Environmental Diagnostics
and Bioremediation at the University of West Florida, published a report for the ECHD titled
“Analysis of Fecal Loadings Into Bayous Grande, Chico, and Texar Pensacola Bay System, FL”.
The ECHD funded a portion of the research and manpower towards this project. This report
summarizes the findings of a multi-year study to identify sources of fecal loading contamination
within the urban bayous. The University of West Florida is working in partnership with the
Escambia County Health Department to develop a method to distinguish human from non-
human sources of pollution. Several avenues have been explored and are now being explored.
The goal is to determine if failing septic tank systems are contributing to pollution in our area
waterways. If problem areas can be identified, the information will be shared with the Emerald
Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA) and this information will assist in the sewer expansion projects
that are prioritized on a routine basis.




                                                46
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



ECHD ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM

The Environmental Analysis Program (EAP) began in August of 1999 and one of the tasks is to
evaluate the effects of improperly installed and poorly maintained septic tank systems on
groundwater and surface water quality in Escambia County. Many areas of the county have soil
conditions that are unsuitable for a septic tank system. In order for a septic tank system to work
properly, the drain field should be at least 24 inches from the seasonal high water table. This
allows for the bacteria, nutrients, and solids to be filtered and/or treated within the soil before
reaching the sensitive groundwater. Low-lying areas, especially along the coast, may have a
water table very close to the ground surface that could be contaminated by improperly installed
septic tank systems. Other potential problems that could possibly exist include undersized
septic tanks, illegal laundry discharges, improper setbacks to water wells, and drain fields
crossing drinking water lines. All of these situations could allow contaminants to reach our
groundwater, surface water or drinking water.

Escambia County Ordinance 99-36 referenced in ESCAMBIA COUNTY ORDINANCE CHAPTER 98
ARTICLE III, ON-SITE TREATMENT AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, requires an inspection by the
Escambia County Health Department prior to the sale or transfer of property that has an existing
septic tank system. The requirement pertains to all areas of Escambia County south of Well
Line Road. The inspection is designed to identify septic tanks that may be having a detrimental
effect on our water sources and provide information to the buyer regarding the functionality of
the septic tank system. Inspectors evaluate the drain field, determine the outside dimensions of
the septic tank compartment, what material the tank is made from and if any obvious structural
defects exist with the tank. If a sanitary nuisance exists, the homeowner is required to correct
the problem immediately. All required setbacks regarding system placement are also checked
for compliance with Chapter 64E-6 of the Florida Administrative Code and Florida Statute 381.
The results of the inspection must be made available to the seller as well as the buyer before or
at the time of closing.

To date, we have found many areas that are susceptible to groundwater contamination by
failing septic tank systems. Water monitoring has identified several “hot spots” of bacteria. The
greatest concentrations can be found in the small creeks and streams feeding into the water
bodies. Many septic tanks in sensitive areas have been abandoned, hopefully preventing
further impacts on our water resources. As we continue to identify failing septic tanks and
available sewer connections in sensitive areas, we can move closer to our goal of cleaning up
area waterways and protecting our drinking water resources.

ESCAMBIA COUNTY ORDINANCE CHAPTER 98 ARTICLE III, ON-SITE TREATMENT AND SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Sec. 98-61. Short title.
       This article shall be known and may be cited as "Escambia County On-site Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Systems Ordinance." This article is provided in Appendix __ for
reference.
(Code 1985, § 1-29-176; Ord. No. 99-24, § 1(1-29.176), 5-6-99)




                                                47
                                       Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                                TABLE 5: ECHD ACTIVITIES OR PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS OSTDS SOURCES
PROJECT                                                                                                                     ESTIMATED   FUNDING
NUMBER             PROJECT NAME                            PROJECT DESCRIPTION                       LEVEL OF EFFORT          COST      SOURCE      PROJECT STATUS
                                                                                                                                                  For those cases
                                                                                                                                                  that require
                                                                                                                                                  enforcement, the
                                                                                                                                                  ECHD has its own
                                                                                                                                                  attorney to take
                                                                                                                                                  cases to court.
                                                                                                    When an inspection                            FDEP law
                                               In compliance with 64E-6, Florida                    determines that an                            enforcement
                                               Administrative Code ECHD utilizes the               ECHD-issued OSTDS                              becomes involved
                                               expertise of DOH certified supervisors, DOH            permit is out of                            in cases of willful
          Field inspect to perform complaint
ECHD –                                         certified field inspectors, and administrative         compliance, the                             pollution. The
          investigations and address legal
  15                                           support staff for all operational aspects of the    inspector notifies the                         ECHD computer
          cases
                                               OSTDS Program. (Most cases in Escambia              appropriate parties in                         database includes
                                               County are corrected without further                   writing with the                            a record of all
                                               enforcement)                                        appropriate violations                         complaints and
                                                                                                            noted                                 investigations.
                                                                                                                                                  This database is
                                                                                                                                                  updated daily and
                                                                                                                                                  may include
                                                                                                                                                  approximately 10
                                                                                                                                                  to 15 complaints
                                                                                                                                                  per week.
                                               Provide site application and plan
                                               review, site evaluation, system
                                               construction permitting, and
                                               installation inspection - ECHD must                    The goal for the
                                               review all applications for construction           average number of days
ECHD –                                         permits relating to the installation,                   to issue a new
          OSTD Permitting
  16                                           modification, replacement, or repair of             construction permit is
                                               OSTDS and determine within the time                eight days and two days
                                               limitations prescribed by the Florida                 for a repair permit
                                               Administrative Procedures Act,
                                               Section 120.60, F.S., whether to issue
                                               or deny a permit.
                                                                                                  ECHD issues an annual
                                               When a building served by an OSTDS is
                                                                                                    operating permit and
          Industrial/Business Annual           located in an area zoned or used for
ECHD –                                                                                              requires at least one
          Operating Permits and                industrial/manufacturing purposes, or where a
  17                                                                                               compliance inspection
          Compliance Inspections               business generates commercial sewerage
                                                                                                          per year.
                                               waste,




                                                                               48
                                         Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


PROJECT                                                                                                                ESTIMATED   FUNDING
NUMBER              PROJECT NAME                            PROJECT DESCRIPTION               LEVEL OF EFFORT            COST      SOURCE    PROJECT STATUS
                                                                                          Service permits issued
                                               Service permits are issued to the
                                                                                          annually, ECHD
                                               following facilities: Septic disposal
          ECHD also regulates the                                                         performs one to two
ECHD–                                          services; Lime stabilization facilities;
          OSTDS maintenance                                                               compliance inspections
  18                                           Land application facilities; Portable or
          industries.                                                                     each year, as follows,
                                               temporary toilet services; and Septic
                                                                                          depending on the type
                                               tank manufacturers.
                                                                                          of facility
                                                                                          The goal is to determine
                                                                                          if failing septic tank
          ECHD RESEARCH PROGRAM
                                                                                          systems are
          In 2006, the University of
                                               ECHD funded a portion of the               contributing to pollution
          West Florida published a
                                               research and manpower towards this         in our area waterways.
          multi-year study to identify                                                                                                        Complete; 2006
                                               project; the University of West Florida    If problem areas can be
          sources of fecal loading                                                                                                            Report provides
                                               is working in partnership with the         identified, the
          contamination within the                                                                                                           important baseline
                                               Escambia County Health Department          information will be
ECHD-19   urban bayous. Report for                                                                                                              data of fecal
                                               to develop a method to distinguish         shared with the Emerald
          the ECHD titled “Analysis                                                                                                           contamination in
                                               human from non-human sources of            Coast Utilities Authority
          of Fecal Loadings Into                                                                                                              the Bayou Chico
                                               pollution. Several avenues have            (ECUA) and this
          Bayous Grande, Chico,                                                                                                                  watershed
                                               been explored and are now being            information will assist in
          and Texar Pensacola Bay
                                               explored.                                  the sewer expansion
          System, FL”. summarized
                                                                                          projects that are
          the findings of
                                                                                          prioritized on a routine
                                                                                          basis.
                                                                                          Identifying low-lying
                                                                                          areas, especially along
                                                                                          the coast, may have a
                                                                                          water table very close to
                                                                                          the ground surface that
                                                                                          could be contaminated
                                               To evaluate the effects of improperly      by improperly installed
                                               installed and poorly maintained septic     septic tank systems. As                                Ongoing
          Environmental Analysis Program
ECHD-20                                        tank systems on groundwater and            well as other potential                               Inspection
          (EAP) began in August 1999
                                               surface water quality in Escambia          problems that could                                    Program
                                               County.                                    possibly exist include
                                                                                          undersized septic tanks,
                                                                                          illegal laundry
                                                                                          discharges, improper
                                                                                          setbacks to water wells,
                                                                                          and drain fields crossing
                                                                                          drinking water lines.




                                                                               49
                                    Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


PROJECT                                                                                                           ESTIMATED   FUNDING
NUMBER             PROJECT NAME                         PROJECT DESCRIPTION               LEVEL OF EFFORT           COST      SOURCE      PROJECT STATUS
                                                                                                                                         To date, we have
                                                                                                                                        found many areas
                                                                                                                                                that are
                                                                                                                                            susceptible to
                                                                                       The inspection is
                                                                                                                                             groundwater
                                           Requires an inspection by the               designed to identify
                                                                                                                                         contamination by
                                           Escambia County Health Department           septic tanks that may be
                                                                                                                                         failing septic tank
                                           prior to the sale or transfer of property   having a detrimental
                                                                                                                                          systems. Water
                                           that has an existing septic tank            effect on our water
                                                                                                                                           monitoring has
                                           system. The requirement pertains to         sources and provide
                                                                                                                                         identified several
                                           all areas of Escambia County south of       information to the buyer
                                                                                                                                            “hot spots” of
                                           Well Line Road. If a sanitary               regarding the
 ECHD                                                                                                                                       bacteria. The
                                           nuisance exists, the homeowner is           functionality of the
    &      Escambia County Ordinance 99-                                                                                                       greatest
                                           required to correct the problem             septic tank system.
Escambia   36 referenced in ESCAMBIA                                                                                                    concentrations can
                                           immediately. All required setbacks          Inspectors evaluate the
County -   COUNTY ORDINANCE CHAPTER 98                                                                                                     be found in the
                                           regarding system placement are also         drain field, determine
   21                                                                                                                                    small creeks and
                                           checked for compliance with Chapter         the outside dimensions
                                                                                                                                          streams feeding
                                           64E-6 of the Florida Administrative         of the septic tank
                                                                                                                                            into the water
                                           Code and Florida Statute 381. The           compartment, what
                                                                                                                                            bodies. Many
                                           results of the inspection must be           material the tank is
                                                                                                                                           septic tanks in
                                           made available to the seller as well as     made from and if any
                                                                                                                                           sensitive areas
                                           the buyer before or at the time of          obvious structural
                                                                                                                                              have been
                                           closing.                                    defects exist with the
                                                                                                                                             abandoned,
                                                                                       tank.
                                                                                                                                               hopefully
                                                                                                                                         preventing further
                                                                                                                                           impacts on our
                                                                                                                                          water resources.




                                                                           50
              Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




4.3 SUMMARY OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORTS
[Discuss activities named above and whether they are sufficient to address the potential
sources from OSTDS that have been identified.]




                                           51
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                           CHAPTER 5: STORMWATER
5.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
[Discuss potential stormwater sources in the watershed.]

5.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
[Describe what projects and programs have been or will be implemented to address stormwater
sources. Include tables of projects for each entity – example table below.]

Escambia County:

Funding

In 2003, the City of Pensacola implemented a Stormwater Utility Fee that generates
approximately $XX million annually for stormwater improvement projects. Escambia County
utilizes a portion of the Local Option Sales Tax for capital improvement stormwater projects.
The County designates approximately $XX million annually for these stormwater improvement
projects.

MS4 Capital and Drainage System Repair (DSR) Projects

Between 1999 and 2009, Escambia County and the City of Pensacola completed numerous
new MS4 capital improvement projects in the Bayou Chico Watershed (BCW) at a cost of over
$XX million. The County’s and the City’s current 5-year Capital Improvement Plans list XX MS4
projects in the BCW with a total estimated cost of over $XX million, with an additional $XX
million in proposed funding beyond the 5-year plans.

In addition to constructing new drainage CIP projects in the BCW, between 1999 and 2009, the
County and the City have completed over XX drainage system repair (DSR) projects in the
BCW at a cost of over $XX million. It is anticipated that continuing expenditures for DSR
projects will average $XX annually.

As summarized above, the County and the City will continue to construct new MS4 projects, as
well as DSR projects, in the BCW to reduce stormwater runoff, treat stormwater runoff, and
reduce fecal coliform loading in the BCW.

Stormwater Management Plan

Both Escambia County and the City of Pensacola have Stormwater Management Plans. The
plans include new proposed stormwater CIP projects, needed drainage system repair projects,
water quality monitoring and modeling results, and proposed stormwater budgets.

MS4 NPDES Program

Escambia County and the City of Pensacola are MS4 NPDES co-permittees, along with FDOT
and the Town of Century. Managing stormwater, maintaining the MS4 infrastructure, reducing
pollutant loading, monitoring progress, and education and outreach are important components
of the NPDES Program.



                                              52
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



      MS4 Maintenance Activities

Escambia County and the City of Pensacola Public Works Departments manage MS4
maintenance activities including street sweeping, stormwater pond and BMP maintenance, ditch
cleaning, and infrastructure repair. Citizen concerns are logged in through telephone and
internet systems to enable timely and responsive tracking and repair. Monthly schedules for
regular maintenance activities are followed. Approximately XX stormwater BMPs are regularly
maintained, and XX miles of streets are swept on a regular schedule. The County and City
budget $XX annually for MS4 maintenance activities.

The Florida Department of Transportation:

The MS4 system provides a vehicle for enforcement of illicit discharges. The FDOT has
authority as stated above under 14-86, F.A.C. for addressing storm water.

The FDOT storm sewer system is inspected for operation and condition under a Maintenance
Rating program (MRP). Maintenance activities are actually graded and reported on based on
this program.

Two bridges over Bayou Chico in the area were replaced by FDOT and now include storm water
treatment, where it had not been previously treated: SR 292 Barrancas Avenue replacement for
the old draw bridge, and the current replacement of US 98 Navy Boulevard. Both of these
bridges originally had no water quality treatment associated with them. They both meet current
(as of permitting) water quality standards. Stormwater ponds are located on Barracus under the
high rise bridge on the south side and US 98 Navy Boulevard has roadside treatment swales
adjacent to the bridge within the right of way.

      Inspection and Sampling Activities

Escambia County and the City of Pensacola, through an Interlocal Agreement, inspect all major
stormwater outfalls and monitor pollutant loading as required by the NPDES Permit. Over 1500
outfalls are inspected, and over 150 major outfalls are sampled, on a schedule specified by the
NPDES Permit. Escambia County has constructed and staffed a Water Quality Laboratory to
analyze sediment and water samples for the NPDES Monitoring Plan. Stormwater outfalls in
the BCW are inspected and sampled on a regularly scheduled basis. Bacteria monitoring data
illustrates trends and areas of concern so that potential sources of contamination can be traced.

      Illicit Connection Program and Enforcement

Escambia County and the City of Pensacola conduct routine inspections to locate potential illicit
discharges and connections. Escambia County purchased a truck-operated camera that is
deployed in the storm drain system to locate illicit connections. Dry weather monitoring is
conducted to determine if dry weather flows are from illicit connections or discharges. High Risk
Industries and Small Quantity Generators are inspected on a routine basis.

      Outreach and Education

Escambia County and the City of Pensacola are active participants in the Bay Area Resource
Council (BARC). BARC activities include educational seminars, educational pamphlets, door
hangers, refrigerator magnets, storm drain stenciling, and other outreach activities to help



                                               53
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



educate homeowners and neighborhood associations about proper fertilizer usage, septic tank
maintenance, pet wastes, disposal of wastes in the stormwater drain, and leaf litter. Many of
these activities help reduce bacteria loading to surface waters, including the BCW.

      Special Projects and Investigations

Escambia County and the City of Pensacola are active members of the Florida Stormwater
Association (FSA). The County and City recently completed a FSA project to collect sediment
samples from various stormwater BMPs in different land uses to determine the nutrient load
reductions associated with specific BMP usage and maintenance activities.




                                             54
                                     Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                            TABLE 6: COUNTY AND CITY-WIDE ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS STORMWATER SOURCES
 PROJECT                                                                                            ESTIMATED   FUNDING   PROJECT
 NUMBER              PROJECT NAME                PROJECT DESCRIPTION              LEVEL OF EFFORT     COST      SOURCE    STATUS
                                             Wetlands provide an
                                             excellent filter for treating
                                             stormwater runoff prior to it
                                             entering our waterways. In
                                             an effort to highlight how
                                             stormwater wetlands can be
                                             used as an alternative to the
                                             traditional stormwater pond,
                                             DEP partnered with
                                             Escambia County, the
              Glynn Key Stormwater-
                                             Natural Resource
              Wetland Education Park:
                                             Conservation Service, the
 Escambia     Included the Construction of                                                                      FDEP
                                             Florida Department of                                  $500,000              Completed
County - 22   new stormwater BMP,                                                                               Grant
                                             Transportation, Southgate
              educational boardwalk and
                                             Shopping Center, and the
              signage
                                             Bayou Chico Association to
                                             convert a commercial
                                             development holding pond
                                             into a county stormwater
                                             wetland education park. The
                                             goal was to show how such
                                             a stormwater wetland can
                                             provide an asset to the
                                             development and
                                             community.
                                             Several projects to improve
                                             Bayou Chico water quality
                                             have been undertaken by a
                                             number agencies, including
Escambia                                     DEP's Northwest District
               Bayou Chico Restoration
County -                                     Ecosystem Restoration
                      Projects
23                                           Section, Escambia County,
                                             NWFWMD, and Bayou Chico
                                             Association. Projects include
                                             the removal of the old
                                             Barrancas Avenue


                                                                             55
                                     Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


 PROJECT                                                                                                             ESTIMATED    FUNDING    PROJECT
 NUMBER             PROJECT NAME                 PROJECT DESCRIPTION                      LEVEL OF EFFORT              COST       SOURCE     STATUS
                                             drawbridge, removal of the
                                             old CSX train trestle,
                                             construction of a sediment
                                             basin at W Street,
                                             construction of the Maggie's
                                             Ditch stream restoration, and
                                             several emergent marsh
                                             restoration projects along the
                                             bayou's shoreline.

                                                 Construction of new
                                                                                    Stormwater treatment for ___
 Escambia                                         stormwater BMP,                                                                  FDEP
              Jackson Lakes Stormwater                                              acres (drainage area) nort of    $500,000                Complete
County - 24                                    educational amphitheater                                                            Grant
                                                                                             Navy Blvd.
                                                     and signage
                                                                                      Stakeholders pinched in to
Escambia                                     Removal of derelict vessels            remove ___ vessels from the                    FWC
                Derelict Vessel Removal                                                                               $50,000                Complete
County - 25                                        from Bayou                      Bayou, which could be potential                 Grant
                                                                                       sources of contamination
                Stormwater Treatment -                                              In proximity to the Bayou, the
 Escambia        construction of 11 new          Stormwater treatment                   County is constructing                                Under
                                                                                                                     $1,100,000
County - 26   stormwater BMPs associated     installation and maintenance            stormwater BMPs for areas                              construction
                  with new development                                                  under re-development
                                                                                   Sampling to assess conditions
Escambia
                                             Inspections associated with                 and identify sources.
County &       Illicit Discharge Detection                                                                            $50.000                Ongoing
                                                   NPDES permit                    Enforcement action taken if PIC
FDOT - 27
                                                                                               detected
                                                County maintains and                 Stormwater Inspections and
 Escambia     Stormwater Pond Inspection
                                                inspects > 300 ponds                   maintenance continually       $300,000                Ongoing
County - 28    and Maintenance Program
                                                    county-wide                                ongoing
 Escambia
County/City
                                                  Construction of two               Stormwater upgrades/retrofit
    of        West Avery Street Drainage
                                                 stormwater treatment               project between Pace and J       $1,400,000   Funded     In design
Pensacola           Improvements
                                                       facilities                     Street in the watershed
and ECUA
   - 29
                                                Acquired four parcels of                                                          Funded
 Escambia       Jones Swamp: Wetland                                                Located near Fairfield Dr and
                                                riparian wetlands along                                              $300,000       (FCT     Complete
County - 30          Preservation                                                         Albany Avenue
                                             Jones Creek for preservation                                                          Grant)
Escambia       West Jones Creek Stream           Construction of natural             Wetland Restoration and                      Funded
                                                                                                                     $250,000                Complete
County - 31          Restoration              stream channel, restoration            Maintenance west of Navy                     (USEPA



                                                                              56
                                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011


 PROJECT                                                                                                         ESTIMATED   FUNDING     PROJECT
 NUMBER          PROJECT NAME             PROJECT DESCRIPTION                       LEVEL OF EFFORT                COST      SOURCE      STATUS
                                          activities in floodplain              Blvd., east of Fairfield Dr.                  Grant)
                                          (wetland restoration)
                                                                                 Stormwater and Pollution
 Escambia     Public Education and        Miscellaneous public                   Prevention Brochures and                    Escambia
                                                                                                                 $10,000                 Ongoing
County - 32         Outreach                   education                     information distributed to public                County
                                                                                in Bayou Chico Watershed
                                                                             The entrance to Bayou Chico at                  Locally
NWFWMD
                                       Dredged entrance to Bayou              the main channel was dredged                   supported
& USACOE      Bayou Chico dredging                                                                               $500,000                Completed
                                            Chico Channel                       and improved flushing and                    and
   – 33
                                                                               channel depth in Bayou Chico                  funded
                                        Part of ongoing monitoring
 Escambia      Stormwater Outfall                                                                                            Escambia
                                           efforts for stormwater                        Ongoing                                         Ongoing
County - 34        Monitoring                                                                                                 County
                                      facilities located in the Bayou




                                                                        57
              Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




5.3 SUMMARY OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORTS
[Discuss activities named above and whether they are sufficient to address the potential
sources from stormwater that have been identified.]




                                           1
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                                 CHAPTER 6: MARINAS
6.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES

Marinas, Boatyards, and Moorings

Escambia County, the City of Pensacola and local marina owners within the Bayou are active
supporters of the Clean Marina Program. Waste management and reduction, hazardous
material storage, and sewage pumpout facilities are key elements of this program. Most of the
marinas and boatyards in the Bayou Chico watershed have been awarded Clean Marina
recognition.

The Bayou Chico Association (BCA) is a voluntary association that is compiled of a combination
of residents and businesses located within the Bayou Chico Water Shed District. The
associations mission is help facilitate the efforts directed at helping the water quality, living, and
working conditions on and around Bayou Chico. The associations’ slogan is “Helping to
preserve the Bayou Chico Since 1990”
There are currently seven commercial marinas in the Bayou Chico watershed. Five of these
seven have been awarded Clean Marina status. They are: Island Cove Marina (located at 806
Lakewood Rd), Palm Harbor Marina (located at 1206 Mahogany Mill Rd), Bahia Mar Marina
 ( located at 1901 Cypress St), Pensacola Ship Yard and Marine Complex (clean marina and
clean boatyard – located at 700 Myrik St), and the newest Clean Marina, Harbor View Marina
(located at 1220 Mahogany Mill Rd).

Florida’s NPDES Stormwater Program* regulates point source discharges of stormwater into
surface waters of the State from certain municipal, industrial and construction activities.
Industrial activities that discharge to surface waters of the State or into a municipal separate
storm sewer system (MS4) and fall under any one of the 11 categories of industrial activities
identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) are required to obtain NPDES Stormwater permit coverage.
(The 11 categories are defined using both narrative descriptions and the facilities Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code.) Most regulated facilities obtain permit coverage by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) To Use Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater
Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP), however, some facilities are required to
obtain an individual permit. Industrial activities that can certify “no exposure” at the facility may
be excluded from the requirement to obtain an NPDES Stormwater permit. Regulated facilities
that apply for coverage under the MSGP must also prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP).
Marine industry operations included in the definition of industrial activity are:
♦ Ship and boat building and repair facilities under SIC codes 3731 and 3732
♦ Water transportation facilities under SIC code 44xx that have vessel maintenance shops
   (mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication) and /or equipment-cleaning
   operations. Marinas identified under SIC code 4493, are included in this group. Note that
   equipment cleaning operations include areas where vessel and vehicle exterior wash down
   takes place.

Marinas and boatyards that meet the criteria above must obtain coverage under the NPDES
Stormwater Program with either a MSGP or individual permit. A Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is an essential component of a MSGP.


                                                  2
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




As part of the marinas SWPP, there should be measures identified that address good
housekeeping, spill prevention and response procedures as well as plans to address non-
stormwater and sediment and erosion controls. Such measures and implementation of specific
SWPP plans by all marinas should provide some source controls in these particular areas of the
basin.


6.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
The following generally describes the actions of individual marinas in the BMAP area and
summarizes their ongoing efforts to address pathogen sources from the marina to the bayou.
(ADD MORE)


6.3 SUMMARY OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORTS
[Discuss activities named above and whether they are sufficient to address the potential
sources from stormwater that have been identified.]
Successful BMAP implementation requires commitment and follow-up. In the Commitment to
Plan Implementation (see Chapter 7), stakeholders have expressed their intention to carry out
the plan, monitor its effect, and continue to coordinate within and across jurisdictions to achieve
water quality targets. The FWRA requires that an assessment be conducted every five years to
determine whether there is reasonable progress in implementing the BMAP and achieving
pollutant load reductions. This chapter contains the water quality monitoring component
sufficient to make this evaluation.

6.4 TRACKING IMPLEMENTATION
[Modify as needed]
FDEP will work with the stakeholders to organize the monitoring data and track project
implementation. This information will be presented in an annual report. The stakeholders have
agreed to meet at least every 12 months after the adoption of the BMAP to follow up on plan
implementation, share new information, and continue to coordinate on TMDL-related issues.
The following types of activities may occur at annual meetings:
Implementation Data and Reporting
          o Collect project implementation information from the stakeholders and
              MS4 permit reporting and compare with the BMAP schedule. Table 7
              provides a sample annual reporting form on BMAP project
              implementation (to be completed by the entities).
           o   Discuss the data collection process, including any concerns and
               possible improvements to the process.
           o   Review the monitoring plan implementation, as detailed in Section 6.5.

Sharing New Information
          o Report on results from water quality monitoring and trend information.
           o   Provide updates on new projects and programs in the watershed that
               will help reduce fecal coliform loading.


                                                 3
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



           o   Identify and review new scientific developments on addressing fecal
               coliform contamination and incorporate any new information into annual
               progress reports.
           o   Discuss new       sampling   technologies   that   will   improve   source
               identification.

Coordinating TMDL-Related Issues
           o Provide updates from FDEP on the basin cycle and activities related to
              any impairments, TMDLs, and BMAP.
           o   Obtain reports from other basins where tools or other information may
               be applicable to the Bayou Chico TMDL.

Covering all of these topics is not required for the annual meetings, but they provide examples
of the types of information that should be considered for the agenda to assist with BMAP
implementation and improve coordination among the agencies and stakeholders.




                                                4
                                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



                                        TABLE 7: PROPOSED BMAP ANNUAL REPORTING FORM

                                                2010 Bayou Chico Watershed BMAP
                                               ___YEAR__ ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

REPORTING ENTITY: ___________________________________________________                          DATE: __________________
Note: Relevant MS4 activities, whether contained in the BMAP or not, may be included in this report.
                                       IMPLEMENTATION STATUS – BMAP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
                                                       3
                   AFFECTED                                PROJECTED
      1                            2                                         4                   5
       BMAP          AREA              BRIEF                START/            PROJECT/             PROJECT
                                                                                                                  6
     PROJECT #      (WBID)       DESCRIPTION                 END           ACTIVITY STATUS   MONITORING RESULTS       COMMENTS

       Shade if
     also an MS4
        activity




                                                    NEW MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
                                                       3
                   AFFECTED                                PROJECTED
      1                            2                                         4                   5
       BMAP          AREA              BRIEF                START/            PROJECT/             PROJECT
                                                                                                                  6
     PROJECT #      (WBID)       DESCRIPTION                 END           ACTIVITY STATUS   MONITORING RESULTS       COMMENTS

       Shade if
     also an MS4
        activity




                                                                       5
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



Directions for BMAP Annual Reporting Format:
1
  BMAP Projects: This includes projects and other management strategies. Use the
project number assigned in the BMAP Activities Tables (e.g., A-1). Please include all
management strategies for which you have lead responsibility in the BMAP, regardless of
their status. New Management Strategies: Include new projects/activities that are not
included in the BMAP in the New Management Strategies table. Create a project number
for new management strategies by using the prefix, then -N# (e.g., A-N1). If a
management action listed in either table is part of your MS4, please shade the project
number box in grey.
2
 Include a brief description of the management action being reported (e.g., street sweeping
removing gross debris on all streets with "L curbs" – 5 miles performed each month).
3
 If applicable, include the start and end dates for the management action. If not applicable,
put “N/A” or, if it is a continuous activity, put “Continuous” and indicate how often the activity
takes place (e.g., for street sweeping).
4
  Clearly summarize the status of the management action, in a way that makes sense for
the item listed. For instance, for educational activities, list pertinent publications, events,
etc., including name and/or topic for each. Include specific or general time frames (e.g.,
two public workshops on pet waste disposal in July 2011). Also, describe any significant
changes to the management action that have taken place.
5
 As applicable: If monitoring is required as part of a management action (e.g., in a cost-
share situation), or is conducted voluntarily (e.g., as part of an effort to collect information
on BMAP effectiveness), include the monitoring results to date, as practicable.
6
 Include comments on any implementation obstacles, including weather, funding, technical
difficulties, etc. Include any other comments you consider important.




                                                  6
                 Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




6.5 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
6.5.1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING OBJECTIVES
Focused objectives are critical for a monitoring strategy to provide the information needed to
evaluate implementation success. The primary and secondary objectives of the monitoring
strategy for the tributaries are described below. These objectives will be used to evaluate the
success of the BMAP, help interpret the data collected, and provide information for potential
future refinements of the BMAP.
Primary Objective
List objective

Secondary Objective
List objective

6.5.2 WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
[Modify list of parameters as needed]
The water quality indicators listed in Table 8 will be sampled to achieve the monitoring plan
objectives. These parameters will be analyzed to determine if there is a correlation with the
observed fecal coliform concentrations. In addition, descriptions of the field conditions are
important because factors outside of water quality could affect the observed bacterial colony
counts.
                  TABLE 8: WATER QUALITY INDICATORS AND FIELD PARAMETERS
                                          WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
                      Fecal coliform (colony-forming units per 100 milliliters [cfu/100mL])
                             Conductivity (micromhos per centimeter [umho/cm])
                                Dissolved Oxygen (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
                                       Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%)
                                                      pH
                                       Salinity (parts per thousand [ppt])
                                               Temperature (°C)
                                Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Units [NTU])
                                               FIELD CONDITIONS
                                             Air Temperature (°C)
                                                 Cloud Cover
                                                    Rainfall
                                                  Tide Stage
                                                Canopy Cover
                                             Water Flow Condition
                                                     Wind


6.5.3 MONITORING NETWORK
[Describe who will be responsible for the monitoring and what stations will be monitored.
Possibly include a map showing the monitoring locations.]


                                                       7
                  Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



6.5.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Through cooperation on TMDL-related data collection, FDEP and stakeholders have
consistently used similar standard operating procedures (SOPs) for field sampling and lab
analyses. This consistency will continue into the future to ensure that data can be used not only
for tracking BMAP progress but also for future TMDL evaluations and other purposes. The
collection of water quality data will be conducted in a manner consistent with FDEP’s SOPs for
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). The most current version of these procedures can
be downloaded from www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/qa/sops.htm. All stakeholders contributing data in
support of the BMAP agree to follow these SOPs.

6.5.5 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
[Update as necessary]
Data collected as part of this monitoring plan will need to be tracked, compiled, and analyzed for
it to be useful in support of the BMAP. The Florida STORET database will serve as the primary
resource for storing ambient data and providing access for all stakeholders, in accordance with
Section 62-40.540, F.S. Stakeholders have agreed to upload data to STORET in a timely
manner, after the appropriate QA/QC checks have been completed. All applicable data
collected by the entities responsible for monitoring will be uploaded to STORET regularly, but at
least quarterly. FDEP will be responsible for data storage and retrieval from the STORET
database.
STORET uploads are only appropriate for data that represent ambient conditions. Data that are
collected to follow up on fecal coliform water quality exceedances should not be uploaded to
STORET. The sampling entities will be responsible for submitting this type of data to FDEP in
the TAT spreadsheet each month.

6.6 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES
[Modify as necessary]
Adaptive management involves setting up a mechanism for making adjustments in the BMAP
when circumstances change or feedback indicates the need for a more effective strategy.
Adaptive management measures include the following:
Procedures to determine whether additional cooperative strategies are needed;
Criteria/processes for determining whether and when plan components need revision due to changes in costs,
environmental impacts, social effects, watershed conditions, or other factors; and
Descriptions of the stakeholders’ role after BMAP completion.

Key components of adaptive management to share information and expertise are tracking plan
implementation, monitoring water quality and pollutant loads, and holding periodic meetings.
BMAP execution will be a long-term process. Some projects will extend beyond the first five
years of BMAP cycle. The stakeholders will track implementation efforts and monitor water
quality to measure effectiveness and ensure BMAP compliance. The stakeholders will meet at
least every 12 months to discuss implementation issues, consider new information, and, if the
watershed is not projected to meet the TMDL, determine additional corrective actions. Project
implementation as well as program and activity status will be collected annually from the
participating entities. The stakeholders will review these reports to assess progress towards
meeting the BMAP’s goals.




                                                        8
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




UNSURE JUST NOW WHERE BEST TO INSERT THIS – PROB MONITORING INFO
A decision matrix tool for fecal coliform impairments was developed and has been evaluated in
other watersheds, and for the purposes of this document and for future monitoring plans, some
stakeholders suggested that its use may be helpful in distinguishing relative fecal coliform
exceedances in contrast to other basins having similar water quality issues (e.g. Bayou Grande,
Bayou Texar, and Carpenter Creek). We presented this decision-tool matrix at the August 2009
technical meeting. Dr. Alexander Maestre (Geosyntec) similarly used this decision support
matrix in his analyses of waterbodies in the Pensacola basin being assessed for the Healthy
Beaches program for the Florida Department of Health (Maestre 2009). (Findings) This
decision tool is principally designed for identifying relative differences in water quality land use
categories.




                                                 9
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



         CHAPTER 7: COMMITMENT TO PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Section 403.067(7), F.S., lays out the mechanisms for BMAP implementation (see Appendix
B). While the BMAP is linked by statute to permitting and other enforcement processes that
target individual entities, successful implementation mandates that local stakeholders willingly
and consistently work together to attain adopted TMDLs. This collaboration fosters the sharing
of ideas, information, and resources. The stakeholders have demonstrated their willingness to
confer with and support each other in their efforts.
[Add details about commitment – process to obtain commitment, any letters of commitment
received, etc.]




                                               10
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




                    APPENDICES




                             11
                 Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




               Appendix A: TMDL Basin Rotation Schedule
TMDLs are developed, allocated, and implemented through a watershed management
approach (managing water resources within their natural boundaries) that addresses the state’s
52 major hydrologic basins in five groups, on a rotating schedule. Table A-1 shows the
hydrologic basins within each of the five groups, with the FDEP District office of jurisdiction.
Table A-2 illustrates the repeating five-year basin rotation schedule.
            TABLE A-1: MAJOR HYDROLOGIC BASINS BY GROUP AND FDEP DISTRICT OFFICE
  FDEP          GROUP 1         GROUP 2             GROUP 3            GROUP 4          GROUP 5
 DISTRICT        BASINS          BASINS              BASINS            BASINS           BASINS
              Ochlockonee–    Apalachicola–     Choctawhatchee–
   NW                                                               Pensacola Bay     Perdido Bay
                St. Marks       Chipola         St. Andrews Bay
                                                                                       Upper East
   NE           Suwannee     Lower St. Johns     Not applicable    Nassau–St. Marys
                                                                                         Coast
                                                                                      Indian River
  Central       Ocklawaha    Middle St. Johns    Upper St. Johns      Kissimmee
                                                                                        Lagoon
                               Tampa Bay         Sarasota Bay–
   SW          Tampa Bay                                            Withlacoochee     Springs Coast
                               Tributaries       Peace–Myakka
               Everglades
    S                        Charlotte Harbor    Caloosahatchee    Fisheating Creek   Florida Keys
               West Coast
                                                   Lake Worth
                  Lake         St. Lucie–                          Southeast Coast–
    SE                                              Lagoon–                            Everglades
               Okeechobee     Loxahatchee                            Biscayne Bay
                                                Palm Beach Coast

Each group will undergo a cycle of five phases on a rotating schedule:

         Phase 1: Preliminary evaluation of water quality
         Phase 2: Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments
         Phase 3: Development and adoption of TMDLs for waters verified as impaired
         Phase 4: Development of basin management action plan (BMAP) to achieve the TMDL
         Phase 5: Implementation of the BMAP and monitoring of results

The Bayou Chico Watershed is part of Pensacola Bay, which is a Group 4 basin. As such, the
Cycle 1 list of verified impaired waters was developed in 2006. Subsequent TMDL and BMAP
development is occurring on a schedule driven by the 1998 303(d) list (see
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/ for more information) and FDEP staff resource availability.
FDEP will re-evaluate impaired waters every five years to determine whether improvements are
being achieved, and to refine loading estimates and TMDL allocations using new data. If any
changes in a TMDL are required, the applicable TMDL rule may be revised. Changes to a
TMDL would prompt revisions to the applicable BMAP, which will be revisited at least every five
years and modified as necessary, regardless of whether the TMDL is modified.




                                                 12
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




    Appendix B: Summary of Statutory Provisions Guiding
           BMAP Development and Implementation
    SECTIONS 403.067(6) AND (7), FLORIDA STATUTES - Summary of Excerpts

ALLOCATIONS
       The TMDL shall include reasonable and equitable allocations of the TMDL between or among
        point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in conjunction with other management and
        restoration activities, provide for the attainment of pollutant reductions established pursuant to
        paragraph (a) to achieve applicable water quality standards.
       The allocations may establish the maximum amount of the pollutant that may be discharged or
        released in combination with other discharges or releases.
       Allocations may also be made to individual basins and sources or as a whole to all basins and
        sources or categories of sources of inflow to the water body or water body segments.
       An initial allocation of allowable pollutant loads may be developed as part of the TMDL; in such
        cases detailed allocations to specific point sources and categories of nonpoint sources shall be
        established in the basin management action plan.
       The initial and detailed allocations shall be designed to attain pollutant reductions established
        pursuant to paragraph (a) and shall be based on consideration of:
                 1. Existing treatment levels and management practices;
                 2. Best management practices established and implemented pursuant to paragraph
                 (7)(c);
                 3. Enforceable treatment levels established pursuant to state or local law or
                 permit;
                 4. Differing impacts pollutant sources may have on water quality;
                 5. The availability of treatment technologies, management practices, or other pollutant
                 reduction measures;
                 6. Environmental, economic, and technological feasibility of achieving the allocation;
                 7. The cost benefit associated with achieving the allocation;
                 8. Reasonable timeframes for implementation;
                 9. Potential applicability of any moderating provisions such as variances, exemptions,
                 and mixing zones; and
                 10. The extent to which non-attainment of water quality standards is caused by pollution
                 sources outside of Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alterations to water bodies
                 prior to the date of this act.

GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
         DEP is the lead agency in coordinating TMDL implementation, through existing water quality
          protection programs.
         Application of a TMDL by a water management district does not require WMD
          adoption of the TMDL.
         TMDL implementation may include, but is not limited to:
            o Permitting and other existing regulatory programs
            o Non-regulatory and incentive-based programs
            o Other water quality management and restoration activities, such as Surface Water
                Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans or basin management action
                plans
            o Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements
            o Public works
            o Land acquisition




                                                   13
           Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
    DEP may develop a basin management action plan that addresses some or all of the
     watersheds and basins tributary to a TMDL waterbody.
    A basin management action plan shall:
       o Integrate appropriate management strategies available to the state through
            existing water quality protection programs.
       o Equitably allocate pollutant reductions to individual basins, all basins, each
            identified point source, or category of nonpoint sources, as appropriate.
       o Identify the mechanisms by which potential future increases in pollutant loading will
            be addressed.
       o Specify that for nonpoint sources for which BMPs have been adopted, the initial
            requirement shall be BMPs developed pursuant to paragraph (c).
       o Establish an implementation schedule.
       o Establish a basis for evaluating plan effectiveness.
       o Identify feasible funding strategies.
       o Identify milestones for implementation and water quality improvement, and an
            associated water quality monitoring component to evaluate reasonable progress
            over time.
       o Be adopted in whole or in part by DEP Secretarial Order, subject to chapter 120.
    A basin management action plan may:
       o Give load reduction credits to dischargers that have implemented load reduction
            strategies (including BMPs) prior to the development of the BMAP. (Note: this
            assumes the related reductions were not factored into the applicable TMDL.)
       o Include regional treatment systems or other public works as management
            strategies.
       o Provide for phased implementation to promote timely, cost-effective actions.
    An assessment of progress in achieving milestones shall be conducted every 5 years
     and the basin management action plan revised, as appropriate, in cooperation with basin
     stakeholders, and adopted by secretarial order.
    DEP shall assure that key stakeholders are invited to participate in the basin
     management action plan development process, holding at least one noticed public
     meeting in the basin to receive comments, and otherwise encouraging public
     participation to the greatest practicable extent.
    A basin management action plan shall not supplant or alter any water quality
     assessment, TMDL calculation, or initial allocation.

BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
    NPDES Permits
      o Management strategies related to a discharger subject to NPDES permitting shall
         be included in subsequent applicable NPDES permits or permit modifications when
         the permit expires (is renewed), the discharge is modified (revised), or the permit is
         reopened pursuant to an adopted BMAP.
      o Absent a detailed allocation, TMDLs shall be implemented through NPDES permit
         conditions that include a compliance schedule. The permit shall allow for issuance
         of an order adopting the BMAP within five years. (Note: Intended to apply to
         individual wastewater permits – not MS4s)
      o Once the BMAP is adopted, the permit shall be reopened, as necessary, and
         permit conditions consistent with the BMAP shall be established.
      o Upon request by a NPDES permittee, DEP may establish individual allocations
         prior to the adoption of a BMAP, as part of a permit issuance, renewal, or
         modification (revision).
      o To the maximum extent practicable, MS4s shall implement a TMDL or BMAP
         through the use of BMPs or other management measures.
      o A BMAP does not take the place of NPDES permits or permit requirements.
      o Management strategies to be implemented by a DEP permittee shall be completed



                                               14
           Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



           according to the BMAP schedule, which may extend beyond the 5-year term of an
           NPDES permit.
       o Management strategies are not subject to challenge under chapter 120 when they
           are incorporated in identical form into a NPDES permit or permit modification
           (revision).
    Management strategies assigned to nonagricultural, non-NPDES permittees (state,
     regional, or local) shall be implemented as part of the applicable permitting programs.
    Nonpoint source dischargers (e.g., agriculture) included in a BMAP shall demonstrate
     compliance with the applicable TMDLs by either implementing appropriate BMPs
     established under paragraph 7(c), or conducting water quality monitoring prescribed by
     DEP or a WMD. (Note: this is not applicable to MS4s, as they are considered point
     sources under the federal Clean Water Act and TMDL Program.)
       o Failure to implement BMPs or prescribed water quality monitoring may be subject
           to DEP or WMD enforcement action.
    Responsible parties who are implementing applicable BMAP strategies shall not be
     required to implement additional pollutant load reduction strategies, and shall be deemed
     in compliance with this section. However, this does not limit DEP’s authority to amend a
     BMAP.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
    DEP, in cooperation with WMDs and other interested parties, may develop interim
     measures, BMPs, or other measures for non-agricultural nonpoint sources to achieve
     their load reduction allocations.
       o These measures may be adopted by DEP or WMD rule. If adopted, they shall be
            implemented by those responsible for non-agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
    DACS may develop and adopt by rule interim measure, BMPs, or other measures necessary
     for agricultural pollutant sources to achieve their load reduction allocations.
       o These measures may be implemented by those responsible for agricultural pollutant
            sources. DEP, the WMDs, and DACS shall assist with implementation.
       o In developing and adopting these measures, DACS shall consult with DEP, DOH, the
            WMDs, representatives of affected farming groups, and environmental group
            representatives.
       o The rules shall provide for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to
            ensure implementation, including recordkeeping.
    Verification of Effectiveness and Presumption of Compliance -
       o DEP shall, at representative sites, verify the effectiveness of BMPs and other measures
            adopted by rule in achieving load reduction allocations.
       o DEP shall use best professional judgment in making the initial verification of
            effectiveness, and shall notify DACS and the appropriate WMD of the initial verification
            prior to the adoption of a rule proposed pursuant to this paragraph.
       o Implementation of rule-adopted BMPs or other measures initially verified by DEP to be
            effective, or verified to be effective by monitoring at representative sites, provides a
            presumption of compliance with state water quality standards for those pollutants
            addressed by the practices.
    Reevaluation –
       o Where water quality problems are demonstrated despite implementation,
            operation, and maintenance of rule-adopted BMPs and other measures, DEP, a
            WMD, or DACS, in consultation with DEP, shall reevaluate the measures. If the
            practices require modification, the revised rule shall specify a reasonable time
            period for implementation.




                                              15
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




Appendix C: Stakeholder Involvement in BMAP Development
[Delete appendix if not needed.]
BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
[Describe stakeholder involvement in the TMDL and BMAP process for the watershed]

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN MEETINGS
All technical meetings were open to the public and noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly
(FAW). Technical meetings were open to anyone interested in participating in the technical
discussions. In addition, public meetings were held on the verified lists, the adoption of the
TMDLs, and the BMAP document.

PUBLIC MEETING(S)
Meetings on the TMDL and BMAP were held at the following dates and times:
   Review and seek comments on the proposed verified list of impaired waters: [date].
   Review and seek comments on the proposed TMDLs: [date].
   Meeting on the BMAP: [date].




                                              16
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




 Appendix D: Summary of EPA-Recommended Elements of a
               Comprehensive Watershed Plan
The following is an excerpt on the nine elements of a watershed plan from the EPA’s Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Additional
information regarding these elements can be found in the full version of the handbook located
online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/.

NINE MINIMUM ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A WATERSHED PLAN                                      FOR
IMPAIRED WATERS FUNDED USING INCREMENTAL SECTION 319 FUNDS
Although many different components may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has identified a
minimum of nine elements that are critical for achieving improvements in water quality. EPA
requires that these nine elements be addressed for watershed plans funded using incremental
Section 319 funds and strongly recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans
that are intended to remediate water quality impairments.

The nine elements are provided below, listed in the order in which they appear in the guidelines.
Although they are listed as a through i, they do not necessarily take place sequentially. For
example, element d asks for a description of the technical and financial assistance that will be
needed to implement the watershed plan, but this can be done only after you have addressed
elements e and i.

Explanations are provided with each element to show you what to include in your watershed
plan.

NINE ELEMENTS

a. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar
sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other
goals identified in the watershed plan. Sources that need to be controlled should be
identified at the significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are
present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a
rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved
nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing
remediation).

What does this mean?
Your watershed plan should include a map of the watershed that locates the major sources and
causes of impairment. Based on these impairments, you will set goals that will include (at a
minimum) meeting the appropriate water quality standards for pollutants that threaten or impair
the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the watershed covered in the plan.

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.

What does this mean?
You will first quantify the pollutant loads for the watershed. Based on these pollutant loads, you
will determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards.



                                                 17
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



You will then identify various management measures (see element c below) that will help to
reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these
management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the
performance of management measures over time.

Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope
component in paragraph a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row
crops, or eroded streambanks). For waters for which EPA has approved or established TMDLs,
the plan should identify and incorporate the TMDLs.

Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water delivered to a
downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for the pollutant
of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for reductions in
pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL as necessary to attain
the applicable water quality standards.

c. A description of the management measures that will need to be implemented to
achieve load reductions in paragraph 2, and a description of the critical areas in which
those measures will be needed to implement this plan.

What does this mean?
The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve
the load reductions estimated under element b, as well as to achieve any additional pollution
prevention goals called out in the watershed plan. It should also identify the critical areas in
which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This can be done by using a map
or a description.

d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated
costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan.

What does this mean?
You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the entire plan.
This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management
measures, information and education (I/E) activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You
should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan.
Plan sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private funds or resources
that might be available to assist in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and
available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.

e. An information and education (I/E) component used to enhance public understanding
of the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting,
designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be
implemented.

What does this mean?
The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach activities or
actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may support the adoption
and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support stakeholder
involvement efforts.




                                               18
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



f. Schedule for implementing the management measures identified in this plan that is
reasonably expeditious.

What does this mean?
You need to include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in your
watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g.

g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.

What does this mean?
You’ll develop interim, measurable milestones to measure progress in implementing the
management measures for your watershed plan.         These milestones will measure the
implementation of the management measures, such as whether they are being implemented on
schedule, whereas element h (see below) will measure the effectiveness of the management
measures, for example, by documenting improvements in water quality.

h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality
standards.

What does this mean?
Using the milestones you developed above, you’ll develop a set of criteria (or indicators) with
interim target values to be used to determine whether progress is being made toward reducing
pollutant loads. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform
concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). You
must also indicate how you’ll determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if
interim targets are not met and what process will be used to revise the existing management
approach. Where a nonpoint source TMDL has been established, interim targets are also
needed to determine whether the TMDL needs to be revised.

i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts
over time, measured against the criteria established under item h immediately above.

What does this mean?
The watershed plan must include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is
being made toward attainment or maintenance of the applicable water quality standards. The
monitoring program must be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone
criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether
loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water
quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the
effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. In stream monitoring does not have
to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the
project.




                                                19
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




             Appendix E: Programs To Achieve the TMDL
PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM                              AS A    SOURCE     OF
FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION
SPECIFIC COUNTYWIDE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS BY ECUA
FATS, OILS, AND GREASE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Fats, oils and grease (FOG) generated during food preparation build up in sanitary sewer lines.
Without proper maintenance, these lines clog, eventually leading to the occurrence of SSOs.
ECUA has instituted a Fats, Oils, and Grease Elimination Program that regulates commercial
grease dumped into the sewer system. Grease is a major cause of SSOs for utilities, and
ECUA’s program is a preventive program. To help reduce these events, JEA requires that all
food service establishments (“FOG generators”) connected to JEA sewer participate in the FOG
Program.


   1. Satisfactorily pump out grease traps/interceptors;
   2. Attend waste hauler education meeting;
   3. Accept limited regulatory responsibility for the generator.
   4. Submit manifest document for the disposal of all trap contents generated in JEA’s
      service area on a quarterly basis.

Documentation, measurement, and reporting in this standardized fashion will lead to more
informed decisions based on hard data, allowing ECUA to identify and address system
priorities, detect trends, and proactively address problems both internally and cooperatively with
local partners.

PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS STORMWATER                       AS   SOURCES     OF   FECAL COLIFORM
CONTAMINATION
MS4 CAPITAL AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM REPAIR (DSR) PROJECTS

MS4 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

INSPECTION, SAMPLING, AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

MS4 NPDES PROGRAM

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

Public service announcements on septic tank maintenance and pet waste management;
Educational materials and newsletters to provide a better understanding of ordinances;
and



                                                20
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



Presentations to groups such as homeowner’s associations and Citizen Policy Advisory
Committees (CPACs) on the impact of fecal coliform generated by pet waste entering and
affecting our waterways.

PET WASTE MANAGEMENT

SPECIAL PROJECTS AND INVESTIGATIONS

POTENTIAL ILLICIT CONNECTION PROGRAM

FDOT DRAINAGE CONNECTION PROGRAM
14-86.001 Purpose. The purpose of this rule chapter is to regulate and prescribe conditions for
the transfer of stormwater to the Department of Transportation’s right of way as a result of
manmade changes to adjacent property(ies), through a permitting process designed to ensure
the safety and integrity of the Department of Transportation’s facilities and to prevent an
unreasonable burden on lower properties. This rule chapter does not regulate dewatering
activities.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-
12-86, Amended 1-20-09.

14-86.002 Definitions. As used in this rule chapter the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
(1) “Adjacent Property” means any real property or easement with a shared boundary to the
Department’s right of way.
(2) “Applicant” means the owner of adjacent property or the owner’s authorized representative.
(3) “Applicable Water Quality Standards” means rules and regulations of state or federal
governmental entity(ies) pertaining to stormwater discharges from the Department’s facilities to
which the drainage connection is made.
(4) “Approved Stormwater Management Plan” or “Master Drainage Plan” means a plan adopted
or approved by a city, county, water management district, or other agency with specific drainage
or stormwater management authority provided that:
(a) Such plan is actively being implemented;
(b) Any required construction is substantially complete;
(c) Downstream mitigation measures have been provided for in the plan; and
(d) The use of any Department facilities either existing or planned, which are part of such plan,
have been approved by the Department.
(5) “Closed Basin” means a basin without any positive outlet, for the design storms applicable to
this rule.
(6) “Critical Duration” means the length of time of a specific storm frequency which creates the
largest volume or highest rate of net stormwater runoff (post-improvement runoff less pre-
improvement runoff) for typical durations up through and including the 10-day duration for
closed basins and up through the 3-day duration for basins with positive outlets. The critical
duration for a given storm frequency is determined by calculating the peak rate and volume of
stormwater runoff for various storm durations and then comparing the pre-improvement and
post-improvement conditions for each of the storm durations. The duration resulting in the
highest peak rate or largest net total stormwater volume is the “critical duration” storm (volume
is not applicable for basins with positive outlets).
(7) “Department” means the Florida Department of Transportation.
(8) “Discharge” means the event or result of stormwater draining or otherwise transferring from
one property to another or into surface waters.


                                               21
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



(9) “Drainage Connection” means any structure, pipe, culvert, device, paved or unpaved area,
swale, ditch, canal, or other appurtenance or feature, whether naturally occurring or created,
which is used or functions as a link to convey stormwater.
(10) “Facility” or “Facilities” means anything built, installed, or maintained by the Department
within the Department’s right of way.
(11) “Impervious Area” means surfaces which do not allow, or minimally allow, the penetration
of water. Examples of impervious areas are building roofs, all concrete and asphalt pavements,
compacted traffic-bearing areas such as limerock roadways, lakes, wet ponds, pond liners, and
other standing water areas, including some retention/detention areas.
(12) “Improvement” means any man-made change(s) to adjacent property.
(13) “Licensed Professional” means an individual licensed by a Florida professional licensing
board, authorized by law to design and certify the stormwater management system under
review.
(14) “Man-made Change” means any intentional physical change to or upon adjacent property
resultant from an intentional physical change, which establishes or alters the rate, volume, or
quality of stormwater.
(15) “Permit” or “Drainage Connection Permit” means an authorization to establish or alter a
drainage connection to the Department’s right of way issued pursuant to this rule chapter.
(16) “Permittee” means the individual or entity to which a Drainage Connection Permit is issued.
(17) “Positive Outlet” means a point of stormwater runoff into surface waters which under
normal conditions would drain by gravity through surface waters ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico,
or the Atlantic Ocean, or into sinks, closed lakes, or recharge wells provided the receiving
waterbody has been identified by the appropriate Water Management District as functioning as
if it recovered from runoff by means other than transpiration, evaporation, percolation, or
infiltration.
(18) “Post-improvement” means the condition of property after improvement.
(19) “Pre-improvement” means the condition of property:
(a) Before November 12, 1986; or
(b) On or after November 12, 1986, with connections which have been permitted under this rule
chapter or permitted by another governmental entity based on stormwater management
requirements equal to or more stringent than those in this rule chapter.
(20) “Right of Way” means land in which the Department owns the fee or less than the fee, or
for which the Department has an easement, devoted to or required for use as a transportation or
stormwater management facility.
(21) “Stormwater” or “Stormwater Runoff” means the flow of water which results from and
occurs immediately following a rainfall event.
(22) “Stormwater Management System” means a system which is designed and constructed or
implemented to control stormwater, incorporating methods to collect, convey, store, infiltrate,
treat, use, or reuse stormwater to prevent or reduce flooding, overdrainage, pollution, and
otherwise affect the quantity or quality of stormwater in the system.
(23) “Surface Water” means water upon the surface of the earth whether contained in bounds
created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as
surface water when it exits onto the earth’s surface.
(24) “Watershed” means the region draining or contributing water to a common outlet, such as a
stream, lake, or other receiving area.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-
12-86, Amended 1-20-09.

14-86.003 Permit, Assurance Requirements, and Exceptions.
(1) Permit.
(a) No permits are required for properties without improvements on or after November 12, 1986.


                                               22
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



(b) All improvements on or after November 12, 1986, require a Drainage Connection Permit,
Form 850-040-06 (10/08), whether or not the work is done in conjunction with a driveway
connection, and whether or not the improvement retains stormwater runoff on the adjacent
property up to and including the 100 year event of critical duration.
(2) Assurance Requirements.
(a) The applicant for a drainage connection permit shall provide reasonable assurances that:
1. The peak discharge rates and total volumes of stormwater discharging from the adjacent
property to the Department’s right of way are those provided for in an approved stormwater
management plan or master drainage plan; otherwise the post-improvement stormwater runoff
discharging from the adjacent property to the Department’s right of way shall not exceed the
more stringent of the following:
a. The peak discharge rates and total volumes allowed by applicable local regulation; or
b. The improvement shall not increase stormwater discharge rate above the pre-improvement
discharge rate, and in watersheds which do not have a positive outlet, the post-improvement
total volume of stormwater runoff shall not be increased beyond the pre-improvement volume
considering worst case storms for up to the frequencies and durations contained in paragraph
14-86.003(2)(c), F.A.C.
2. Any discharge pipe establishing or constituting a drainage connection to the Department’s
right of way is limited in size based on the pre-improvement discharge rate, downstream
conveyance limitations, downstream tailwater influences, and design capacity restrictions
imposed by other governmental entities.
3. If the improvement changes the inflow pattern of stormwater or method of drainage
connection to the Department’s right of way, post-improvement discharge will not exceed the
pre-improvement discharge to the Department’s right of way, any new drainage connection will
not threaten the safety or integrity of the Department’s right of way, and will not increase
maintenance costs to the Department. At a minimum pavement hydraulics, ditch hydraulics,
storm drain hydraulics, cross drain hydraulics, and stormwater management facilities shall be
analyzed. The analysis must follow the methodology used in the design of the Department’s
facilities receiving the discharge and meet the criteria in chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the
Department’s Drainage Manual, Topic Number 625-040-002-c, May 2008, incorporated herein
by reference.        The Drainage Manual is available from the Department at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/dr/Manualsandhandbooks.shtm.
4. The quality of water conveyed by the connection meets all applicable water quality standards,
and such assurance shall be certified in writing. In the event the discharge is identified causing
or contributing to a violation of applicable water quality standards, the permittee will be required
to incorporate such abatement as necessary to bring the permittee’s discharge into compliance
with applicable standards.
(b) If the requirements set forth in paragraph 14-86.003(2)(a), F.A.C., cannot be fully complied
with, the applicant may submit alternative drainage connection designs. The analysis
supporting the proposed alternative connection must follow the methodology used in the design
of the Department’s facilities receiving the proposed alternative drainage connection and meet
the criteria in chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Department’s Drainage Manual. Deviation from a
standard in the Drainage Manual must be approved by the District Drainage Engineer.
Acceptance of any alternative design must serve the purpose of this rule chapter and shall be
based upon consideration of the following:
1. The type of stormwater management practice proposed;
2. The efficacy and costs of alternative controls;
3. The impact upon the operation and maintenance of the Department’s facilities; and
4. The public interest served by the drainage connection.
(c) In providing reasonable assurances, the applicant shall:



                                                 23
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



1. Use a methodology which is compatible with the methodology employed in the design of the
Department’s facilities receiving the stormwater;
2. Determine the peak discharge rates considering various rainfall event frequencies up to and
including a 100 year event of critical duration of up to three days; and
3. In watersheds without a positive outlet, determine the stormwater runoff total volumes
considering various rainfall amounts up to a 100 year rainfall frequency of critical durations of up
to ten days. The pond retention volume must recover at a rate such that one-half of the volume
is available in seven days with the total volume available in 30 days, with a sufficient amount
recovered within the time necessary to satisfy applicable water treatment requirements.
(3) Exceptions. The following exceptions do not require a Drainage Connection Permit:
(a) Improvements to adjacent properties not draining to the Department’s right of way in the pre-
improvement and post-improvement condition.
(b) Single-family residential improvements which are not part of a larger common plan of
improvement or larger common plan of sale.
(c) Agricultural and silvicultural improvements that:
1. Are subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Protection or regional Water
Management Districts;
2. Are exempt under the provisions of Section 373.406, F.S.; or
3. Are implementing applicable best management practices adopted by the Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Rule Chapter 5M, F.A.C., or Rule Chapter 5I-6, F.A.C.
(d) Any other improvement, provided that all of the following apply:
1. The total impervious area, after improvement, is less than 5,000 square feet of cumulative
impervious area and is less than 40% of that portion of the property that naturally drained to the
Department’s right of way;
2. The improvement does not create or alter a drainage connection;
3. The improvement does not change flow patterns of stormwater to the Department’s right of
way, and does not increase the surface area draining to the Department’s right of way;
4. The property is located in a watershed which has a positive outlet; and
5. The site or improvement is not part of a larger common plan of improvement or larger
common plan of sale. (4) An exception provided in subsection 14-86.003(3), F.A.C., shall not
apply if any drainage connection from the adjacent property threatens the safety and integrity of
the Department’s facilities or creates an unreasonable burden on lower properties, including
violations of applicable water quality standards.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-
12-86, Amended 1-20-09.

14-86.004 Permit Application Procedure.
(1) An applicant shall submit a Drainage Connection Permit, Form 850-040-06 (10/08),
incorporated herein by reference. This form may be obtained from any of the Department’s
local area Maintenance Offices, District Offices, or on the internet at the Department’s website:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/onestoppermitting/.
(2) The applicant shall submit four completed Drainage Connection Permits packages. Each
completed Drainage Connection Permit package shall include all applicable attachments. All
applicable plans and supporting documentation shall be submitted on no larger than 11" X 17"
multipurpose paper and included in PDF format on a compact disk.
(3) The Drainage Connection Permit shall be accompanied by:
(a) A location map, included in the construction plans, sufficient to show the location of the
improvement and any drainage connection to the Department’s right of way, and shall include
the state highway number, county, city, and section, range, and township.
(b) A grading plan drawn to scale showing pre-improvement and post-improvement site
conditions including all pervious and impervious surfaces, land contours, spot elevations, and all


                                                 24
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



drainage facilities of the Department and of the adjacent property. The bench mark datum for
the plans (whether NGVD 29 or NAVD 88) shall be noted on the plans. Contour information
shall extend 50 feet beyond the property boundaries or be sufficient to clearly define the portion
of the watershed which drains through the property to the Department’s right of way.
(c) Photographs which accurately depict pre-improvement and present conditions.
(d) Soil borings and water table data and, where percolation or infiltration is utilized in the
design, appropriate percolation test methodology and results.
(e) Computations as required by subsection 14-86.003(2), F.A.C.
(f) The Drainage Connection Certification, Part 2 of the permit must be certified by a Licensed
Professional that the complete set of plans and computations comply with either paragraph 14-
86.003(2)(a) or 14-86.003(2)(b), F.A.C.
(4) Improvements which otherwise meet the criteria of subparagraphs 14-86.003(3)(d)1. and 14-
86.003(3)(d)4., F.A.C., but which create or alter a drainage connection to the Department’s right
of way, will not require submittal of the information required by paragraphs 14-86.004(3)(d)
through (f), F.A.C., but will otherwise require the submittal of all other required information.
(5) The Department recognizes that regulatory and permitting programs exist or may be
developed in the future by local units of government, and state or federal agencies which may
overlap with some or all of the requirements of this rule chapter. In order to avoid duplication
the Department will:
(a) In lieu of the requirements in Rule 14-86.003 and subsection 14-86.004(3), F.A.C., accept a
permit that accomplishes the purposes of this rule chapter so long as the permit is issued by a
governmental entity with specific stormwater management authority and is based on
requirements equal to or more stringent than those in Rule 14-86.003, F.A.C.; or
(b) Accept any form, plans, specifications, drawings, calculations, or other data developed to
support an application for a permit required by a governmental entity, pursuant to any rule which
establishes requirements equal to or more stringent than Rule 14-86.003, F.A.C.
(6) The Drainage Connection Permit serves as the application. Once approved by the
Department, the form and supporting documents become the Drainage Connection Permit.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-
12-86, Amended 1-20-09.

14-86.005 General Conditions for a Drainage Permit.
(1) A Drainage Connection Permit does not exempt the permittee from meeting all other
applicable regulations and ordinances governing stormwater management.
(2) All work done in conjunction with the drainage connection permit shall meet and adhere to all
general and specific conditions and requirements contained on the Permit.
(3) Within 15 working days after completion of the work authorized by an approved Drainage
Connection Permit, the permittee shall notify the Department in writing of the completion; and
for all design work that originally required certification by a Licensed Professional, this
notification shall contain the As Built Certification, Part 8 of the Permit. The certification shall
state that work has been completed in substantial compliance with the Drainage Connection
Permit.
(4) The permittee or property owner, will be required to reimburse the Department for any fines,
penalties and costs, e.g., abatement costs, mitigation costs, remediation costs, etc. incurred by
the Department in the event the permittee’s discharge fails to meet the applicable water
quality standards or minimum design and performance standards contrary to the permittee’s
assurances provided in subsection 14-86.003(2), F.A.C.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-
12-86, Amended 1-20-09.

14-86.006 Permit Suspension or Revocation. A permit will be suspended or revoked if:


                                                 25
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



(1) The permitted drainage connection is not constructed, operated, or maintained in
accordance with the permit;
(2) Emergency conditions or hazards exist;
(3) False or misleading information is submitted to the Department in the Drainage Connection
Permit package;
(4) Another governmental entity revokes or suspends a permit which was the basis upon which
a Department Drainage Connection Permit was obtained;
(5) The As-built Certificate required for the Drainage Connection Permit is not submitted in
accordance with subsection 14-86.005(3), F.A.C.
(6) Any discharge above the permitted design discharge.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-
12-86, Amended 1-20-09.

14-86.007 Forms.
Specific Authority 334.044(2) FS. Law Implemented 120.53(1)(b), 120.60, 334.03(17), (22),
334.035, 334.044(1), (12), (13), (27), 335.04(2), 335.10(2), 339.155(2)(a), (f) FS. History - New
11-12-86, Repealed 1-20-09.




                                               26
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




                       Appendix F: Glossary of Terms
303(d) List: The list of Florida's waterbodies that do not meet or are not expected to meet
applicable water quality standards with technology-based controls alone.

305(b) Report: Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to report
biennially to the EPA on the quality of the waters in the state.

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC): The Watershed Restoration Act of 1999
required FDEP to form a Technical Advisory Committee to address issues relating to the
allocation of load reductions among point source and nonpoint source contributors. The ATAC
was therefore formed in order to develop recommendations for a report to the legislature on the
process for allocating TMDLs.

Background: The condition of waters in the absence of human-induced alterations.

Baffle box: An underground stormwater management device that uses barriers (or baffles) to
slow the flow of untreated stormwater, allowing particulates to settle out in the box before the
stormwater is released into the environment.

Baseline period: A period of time used as a basis for later comparison.

Baseline loading:     The quantity of pollutants in a waterbody, used as a basis for later
comparison.

Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP): The document that describes how a specific TMDL
will be implemented; the plan describes the specific load and wasteload allocations as well as
the stakeholder efforts that will be undertaken to achieve an adopted TMDL.

Basin Status Report: For the Pensacola Basin, this document was published in 2004 by
FDEP. The report documents the water quality issues, list of water segments under
consideration for a TMDL and data needs in the basin.

Best Available Technology (BAT) Economically Achievable: As defined by 40 CFR,
§125.3, outlines technology-based treatment requirements in permits.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods that have been determined to be the most
effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.

Coliforms: Bacteria that live in the intestines (including the colon) of humans and other
animals, used as a measure of the presence of feces in water or soil.

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States.

Continuous deflective separation (CDS) Unit: A patented stormwater management device
that uses the available energy of the storm flow to create a vortex to cause a separation of
solids from fluids. Pollutants are captured inside the separation chamber, while the water
passes out through the separation screen.


                                               27
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




Designated use: Uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment
(such as drinking water, swimmable, fishable).

Detention Pond: A stormwater system that delays the downstream progress of stormwater
runoff in a controlled manner, typically by using temporary storage areas and a metered outlet
device.

Domestic Wastewater: Wastewater derived principally from dwellings, business buildings,
institutions and the like; sanitary wastewater; sewage.

Dry Season: The dry part of the year when rainfall is low; the dry season is defined as
November through May.

Effluent: Wastewater that flows into a receiving stream by way of a domestic or industrial
discharge point.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The agency was created in December 1970 to
address the nation's urgent environmental problems and to protect the public health. The
majority of FDEP’s regulatory programs has counterparts at the EPA or is delegated from the
EPA.

Event mean concentration: The flow-weighted mean concentration of an urban runoff
pollutant measured during a storm event.

Exfiltration: Loss of water from a drainage system as the result of percolation or absorption
into the surrounding soil.

External loading: Pollutants originating from outside a waterbody that contribute to the
pollutant load of the waterbody.

Flocculent: A liquid that contains loosely aggregated, suspended particles.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): FDEP is Florida's principal
environmental and natural resources agency. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation were merged together to create FDEP
effective July 1, 1993.

Ground Water or Groundwater: Water below the land surface in the zone of saturation where
water is at or above atmospheric pressure.

Impairment: The condition of a waterbody that does not achieve water quality standards
(designated use) due to pollutants or an unknown cause.

Load Allocations (LA): The portions of a receiving water's loading capacity that are allocated
to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution.

Load Capacity: The greatest amount of loading that a waterbody can receive without violating
water quality standards.




                                              28
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



Loading: The total quantity of pollutants in stormwater runoff that contributes to the water
quality impairment.

Margin of safety (MOS): An explicit or implicit assumption used in the calculation of a
TMDL, which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
effluent limitations and water quality. An explicit MOS is typically a percentage of the
assimilative capacity or some other specific amount of pollutant loading (e.g., the loading from
an out-of-state source). Most FDEP-adopted TMDLs include an implicit MOS based on the fact
that the predictive model runs incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions (they examine
worst-case ambient flow conditions, worst-case temperature, and assume that all permitted
point sources discharge at their maximum permittable amount).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): The permitting process by
which technology based and water quality–based controls are implemented.

Nonpoint Source (NPS): Diffuse runoff without a single point of origin that flows over the
surface of the ground by stormwater and is then introduced to surface or ground water. NPS
includes atmospheric deposition and runoff or leaching from agricultural lands, urban areas,
unvegetated lands, OSTDS, and construction sites.

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Nonpoint source pollution is created by the flushing of pollutants
from the landscape by rainfall and the resulting stormwater runoff, or by the leaching of
pollutants through the soils into the ground water.

Organic Matter: Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating from
domestic or industrial sources.

Outfall: The place where a sewer, drain, or stream discharges.

Particulate: A minute separate particle, as of a granular substance or powder.

Pollutant Load Reduction Goals (PLRGs): PLRGs are defined as the estimated numeric
reductions in pollutant loadings needed to preserve or restore designated uses of receiving
waterbodies and maintain water quality consistent with applicable state water quality standards.
PLRGs are developed by the water management districts.

Point Source: An identifiable and confined discharge point for one or more water pollutants,
such as a pipe, channel, vessel, or ditch.

Pollutant: Generally any substance, such as a chemical or waste product, introduced into the
environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

Pollution: An undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of air,
water, soil, or food that can adversely affect the health, survival, or activities of humans or other
living organisms.

Removal efficiency: A description of how much of a given substance (metals, sediment, etc.)
has been extracted from another substance.




                                                 29
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011



Retention Pond:     A stormwater management structure whose primary purpose is to
permanently store a given volume of stormwater runoff, releasing it by infiltration and /or
evaporation.

Reuse: The deliberate application of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Criteria used to
classify projects as “reuse” or “effluent disposal” are contained in Subsection 62-610.810, F.A.C.

Runoff curve: A calculated number representing the percentage of rainfall that becomes runoff
for a given area.

Quality Assurance (QA): An integrated system of management activities involving planning,
implementation, documentation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that
a process, product, or service meets defined standards of quality.

Quality Control (QC): The overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes
and performance of a process, product, or service against defined standards to verify that they
meet the established data quality objectives.

Septic Tank: A watertight receptacle constructed to promote the separation of solid and liquid
components of wastewater, to provide the limited digestion of organic matter, to store solids,
and to allow clarified liquid to discharge for further treatment and disposal in a soil absorption
system.

STORET: The EPA's STOrage and RETrieval database, used nationally for water quality data
storage.

Stormwater: Water that results from a rainfall event.

Stormwater runoff: The portion of rainfall that hits the ground and is not evaporated,
percolated, or transpired into vegetation, but rather flows over the ground surface seeking a
receiving water body.

Submersed: Growing or remaining under water.

Surface Water: Water on the surface of the earth, whether contained in bounds created
naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs is classified as surface water
when it exits the spring onto the earth’s surface.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point
sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to
determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a waterbody or waterbody segment can assimilate from all sources while still
maintaining its designated use must first be calculated. TMDLs are based on the relationship
between pollutants and instream water quality conditions.

Wasteload Allocations (WLAs): Pollutant loads allotted to existing and future point sources,
such as discharges from industry and sewage facilities.

Wastewater: The combination of liquid and pollutants from residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants, and institutions, together with any ground water, surface runoff, or leachate
that may be present.


                                                30
                Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers: WBIDs are numbers assigned to hydrologically
based drainage areas in a river basin.

Water column: The water within a waterbody between the surface and sediments.

Water Quality Index: Determines the quality of Florida's streams, blackwaters, and springs.
Categories include water clarity, dissolved oxygen, oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients,
bacteria, and macroinvertebrate diversity.

Water Quality Standards (WQSs): (1) Standards that comprise the designated most beneficial
uses (classification of water), the numeric and narrative criteria applied to the specific water use
or classification, the Florida Anti-degradation Policy, and the moderating provisions contained in
Rules 62-302 and 62-4, F.A.C. (2) State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for
waterbodies. The standards prescribe the use of the waterbody (such as drinking, fishing and
swimming, and shellfish harvesting) and establish the water quality criteria that must be met to
protect designated uses.

Watershed: Topographic area that contributes or may contribute runoff to specific surface
waters or an area of recharge.

Watershed management approach: The process of addressing water quality concerns within
their natural boundaries, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. The process draws
together all the participants and stakeholders in each basin to decide what problems affect the
water quality in the basin, which are most important, and how they will be addressed.

Wet Season: The rainy part of the year; the wet season is defined as June through October.




                                                 31
               Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




 Appendix G: Bibliography of Key References and Websites
KEY REFERENCES:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), July 1998. The Pensacola Bay
Watershed Management Guide: An Integrated Ecosystem Action Plan. 459 pgs. (pp. 12-14&
320 address Bayou Chico, Jones Creek and Jackson Creek waterbodies)
http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/PBWMG.pdf

FDEP. 2004. Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed
      Management.

FDEP. 2008. Fecal Coliform TMDL for Bayou Chico Watershed, WBIDs 846, 846A, 846B,
     846CB, and 848DA. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management.

Terra Ceia Consulting (TCC). 2008. Development of a decision-support tool to support the
implementation of fecal coliform BMAPs in the Hillsborough River watershed. Prepared for the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Report of the experts scientific workshop
on critical research needs for the development of new or revised recreational water criteria. EPA
823-R-07-006. Washington, DC



MANY MORE STILL TO CITE FROM REPORT…..




                                               32
                        Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – August 2011




       STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION WEBSITES:
       [Add links to any local websites]
                     TABLE G-1: STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION WEBSITES
                 ENTITY/PROGRAM                                                      URL
Local and Regional Sites




State Sites
General Portal for Florida                        http://www.myflorida.com
FDEP                                              http://www.dep.state.fl.us/
  Watershed Management                            http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm
  TMDL Program                                    http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm
  BMPs, public information                        http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm
  NPDES Stormwater Program                        http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/index.htm
  NPS funding assistance                          http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/319h.htm
  Surface Water Quality Standards                 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-302/62-302.pdf
  Pensacola Bay Water Quality Assessment Report   http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/pensacola/status.htm
FDOH                                              http://www.doh.state.fl.us
  Standards for OSTDS                             http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds/pdfiles/forms/64e620070924.pdf
National Sites
Center for Watershed Protection                   http://www.cwp.org/
EPA Office of Water                               http://www.epa.gov/water
  EPA Region 4 (southeast United States)          http://www.epa.gov/region4
  EPA SSO Fact Sheet                              http://www.epa.gov/npdes/sso/control/




                                                           33

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:45
posted:8/10/2011
language:English
pages:80